Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

[Vedubin01]

it varies from state to state.... Florida you have to take a course, where in GA all you have to do is go to the court house and apply.

Im all for the CCW and I feel there should be a course taken before you are able to CCW a firearm. Much like a drivers license. Something that has to be renewed.

[z31maniac]

Here you take an 8 hour, one day course, and have to be able to hit a target at 3 yards and 5 yards.

Complete the course, send in paperwork and $80ish to the Sheriff Dept, wait 2-3 months and you get your CCL, assuming you aren't a convicted felon etc.

[Vedubin01]

Florida with the course is right around $200 counting the fee for processing.

Florida is reciprocates with a lot of other states. Its one of the ones to have if you CCW.


Just got my renewal in the mail yesterday and celebrated by picking up a new knife.

[mar1t1me]

GOD dammit. Again you are going to make me write a book to explain to you what the 2a means

Just two things.....

You referred to the supposed need for WE THE PEOPLE to defend ourselves from an oppressive government. Just how do you suppose that would ever work? No one I know owns tanks, cruise missiles, drone aircraft, jet fighters, etc. What the hell are you planning to defend yourself against this type armament with?

Oh wait, you said:

This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

Right. Do you really want your neighbor, who may or may not have a clue, to have the right to store large amounts of flammable, not to mention explosive armament in his basement? How about a 50 caliber anti-aircraft installation on the corner of his front yard? Who's gonna pay for all this armament? More importantly, who's going to maintain it and upgrade it as the government continues to up the ante? All those apartment dwellers in big cities with their closets full of explosives just in case they have to repel the government?

You're living in a fantasy land if you think, even for an instant, that such a thing is even remotely possible or worse yet, in the best interests of America.

Second,

Your definition of militia stems from the Dick Act of 1903. While your definition of militia is technically correct, the Constitution specifically demanded that said militia be well regulated. Regulated by whom? To what end? A reasonable person might conclude that since those virtually acting as the government wrote the Constitution, government regulation was inferred. These guys don't appear to be regulated by anyone other than themselves. I'd be willing to bet that such wildcat "organizations" were not what the framers had in mind as a "well regulated militia".

You called me a gun-grabber? Puhleeze. I said nothing of the sort. But your idea of an America, One Nation Under Guard, armed out the ass, is ridiculous.

[Vedubin01]

Mar1t1me,

First I have to ask, what the hell are you doing in Alaska? Second, stop drinking the water out of Turnagain Arm off the Seward Highway.


You like many others misread the Constitution.

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.


See that comma?

Definitions of comma on the Web:

• a punctuation mark (,) used to indicate the separation of elements within the grammatical structure of a sentence

Now just read the last part because its separated....


"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As a nation of laws, this is really clear. The right of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Now to answer your other ramblings,

PEOPLE can and do OWN howitzers, bazookas, cannons, grenades, and even mini guns. PRIVATE Citizens of the United States.

And I have yet to hear, someone being killed in a murder or a drug deal with one of these weapons.

Also, more than you know store large amounts of ammo in ones house.

Example:






Perfectly legal to own. I pulled these photos in a thread I follow called Ammo stashes.



here is a video from the discovery channel called Mail Call. Check out what the gunny says!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM

All guns privately owned!


This is just to give you an idea of what Class 3 weapons cost. Its why everyone will not be able to own one. Here is an HK21 for sale, price $36,000.00 plus the taxes to transfer. I dont see gangbangers running around with these EVER!

http://www.gunsamerica.com/999631903/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Class-3-Subguns/HK21.htm

You take the guns out of America and "Your" government will not FEAR you.

[mrsleeve]

Dub has hit a few high points .

Just two things.....

You referred to the supposed need for WE THE PEOPLE to defend ourselves from an oppressive government. Just how do you suppose that would ever work? No one I know owns tanks, cruise missiles, drone aircraft, jet fighters, etc. What the hell are you planning to defend yourself against this type armament with?

1: Does the modern average rifleman Have a drone, or fighter/bomber, or tow missile. NO they carry a standard issue rifle, a few extra mags and if hes lucky a side arm. But like dub has pointed out to you, yes even us average joes can have Destructive devices and full on AAA if you have the cash. (they cost a ton and only 2 times has a NFA item been uesed in a crime, and 1 of those was a COP WITH A DEPARTMENT OWNED WEAPON so only 1 crime has ever been committed with lawfully owned class III weapon)

2 The military is made up of what US CITIZENS 1st. They swear an oath to defend the Constitution, and attempting to disarm, or fire on US CITIZENS is a violation of that. Sure there will be some that will follow those unlawful orders but I dont think the bulk of them will.

Right. Do you really want your neighbor, who may or may not have a clue, to have the right to store large amounts of flammable, not to mention explosive armament in his basement? How about a 50 caliber anti-aircraft installation on the corner of his front yard? Who's gonna pay for all this armament? More importantly, who's going to maintain it and upgrade it as the government continues to up the ante? All those apartment dwellers in big cities with their closets full of explosives just in case they have to repel the government?

Just because you have the rights to something does not mean you have too. If a militia is called up you dont necessarily have to supply your own ammo. Just the arms. Oh but you have to access to ammo while not called up, so you can be well REGULATED in the ues of those arms. You know practice with it so you can hit what you want with it.

I have no issues with anyone having large amounts of ammo in their homes, in fact I encourage it. DO you feel uncomfortable that I have several 1000 rounds of ammo for every gun I own in my basement and that I carry a side arm nearly every where I go????

You're living in a fantasy land if you think, even for an instant, that such a thing is even remotely possible or worse yet, in the best interests of America.

Book for you, More guns less crime - Jon Lott.

That and all but a slim few of the founders would disagree with you on that. They knew what becomes all govt, no matter where or who they are. Thats why we have been left with a provision to stem that.

Your definition of militia stems from the Dick Act of 1903. While your definition of militia is technically correct, the Constitution specifically demanded that said militia be well regulated. Regulated by whom? To what end? A reasonable person might conclude that since those virtually acting as the government wrote the Constitution, government regulation was inferred. These guys don't appear to be regulated by anyone other than themselves. I'd be willing to bet that such wildcat "organizations" were not what the framers had in mind as a "well regulated militia".

Well again the definition is correct now isnt it???? And since you seem to have missed it the 1st time, REGULATED in the context of the 2a means. To be well REGULATED in the use of arms, NOT CONTROLLED AND ORGANIZED WHEN NOT CALLED UP. That way if there was a organization called you know how to operate and use your weapons and were proficient with it, there for being far more effective than just getting handed a govt issue rifle you have no idea how to use, or have never ever held a gun before.

You called me a gun-grabber? Puhleeze. I said nothing of the sort. But your idea of an America, One Nation Under Guard, armed out the ass, is ridiculous.

UMMMM I said you were using the same argument as the grabbers try to use to quantify the 2a to make it NON APPLICABLE to 99% of the citizenry. SO I again urge you to reread ALL of my original post till you and comprehend what it all means before trying to make useless, pointless arguments that have no basis in reality or with in the Constitution.

Really how hard is it to not understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, seems fairly clear to me.


Oh as far as CCW holders go, they are the ones you want to have a weapon on them, in fact something like .3% of violent crime is perpetrated by CCW holders nation wide. Every one I know that carries (its a bunch too) understand the responsibility carrying brings with it. You have a whole new set of rules to live by as soon as you step out of the house with that pistol on your hip.

Μολὼν λαβέ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vedubin01]

the Chicago gun ban is working flawlessly! Says the people of Chicago!

[mar1t1me]

Hey guys, I am enjoying your comments.

Vedubin01: I see little evidence that the government "fears" US citizens. It passed the Patriot Act with little recoil, has covered up unimaginable acts, and continues to do what it damn well pleases. It can call you a terrorist on a whim and suspend your rights to move about freely. It can tap your calls without a court order. What, with regard to possible retaliation by citizens with guns, does the government fear?

mrsleeve: The Constitution does not define "well regulated". It is left open to interpretation. If the 2A exists simply to ensure an armed populace, why the 1st sentence? To me, a "well regulated militia" has rank, and leadership and training, i.e. regulation.

Interestingly, in 1792, the same year as the 2A was ratified, Congress passed the National Defense Act which defined, more or less what well regulated meant to them:


Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

They were expected to attend exercises when called upon and apparently inspected for readiness and ability.

That doesn't happen anymore. Unless you happen to be in the National Guard, which interestingly fills the bill of being both citizenry, and well regulated.

[Vedubin01]

Hey guys, I am enjoying your comments.

Vedubin01: I see little evidence that the government "fears" US citizens.

The US people do follow "turn the cheek", but there will be that "straw" that broke the camels back.

National Gun Ban will the that straw. Look what happened in 1996. The boiling point is fast approaching and you will see it in the elections this year. If it does not go right, you will feel the power of the American people!

As for the 2nd I already spelled it out.....

[joshh]

Hey guys, I am enjoying your comments.

Vedubin01: I see little evidence that the government "fears" US citizens. It passed the Patriot Act with little recoil, has covered up unimaginable acts, and continues to do what it damn well pleases. It can call you a terrorist on a whim and suspend your rights to move about freely. It can tap your calls without a court order. What, with regard to possible retaliation by citizens with guns, does the government fear?

mrsleeve: The Constitution does not define "well regulated". It is left open to interpretation. If the 2A exists simply to ensure an armed populace, why the 1st sentence? To me, a "well regulated militia" has rank, and leadership and training, i.e. regulation.

Interestingly, in 1792, the same year as the 2A was ratified, Congress passed the National Defense Act which defined, more or less what well regulated meant to them:


Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

They were expected to attend exercises when called upon and apparently inspected for readiness and ability.

That doesn't happen anymore. Unless you happen to be in the National Guard, which interestingly fills the bill of being both citizenry, and well regulated.

I'm going to get into the ridiculousness you're talking about.
The national guard, do they take their weapons home with them?
Do you know that guns weren't only used for war back in the day don't you? Yes Americans back in the 1700's used them for self protection and protecting their farms and lively hood.
So if you're going to keep trying to harp on the whole progressive idea that the national guard fully covers the second amendment then you need to do some history classes and a hell of a lot of reading.
Plus the SC just shoved that idea up the liberal asshole.

[mrsleeve]

Hey guys, I am enjoying your comments.



mrsleeve: The Constitution does not define "well regulated". It is left open to interpretation. If the 2A exists simply to ensure an armed populace, why the 1st sentence? To me, a "well regulated militia" has rank, and leadership and training, i.e. regulation.

AHHHH yes But but as noted for the time in which the 2a was written by the Oxford English Dictionary "well regulated" meant "well functioning" and when referenced specifically to troops it means Properly disciplined, and for the time (since loading a musket was lengthy multi step process) means trained in the use of arms. They knew excatly what they meant, unfortunately it has been perverted.

Interestingly, in 1792, the same year as the 2A was ratified, Congress passed the National Defense Act which defined, more or less what well regulated meant to them:


Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

They were expected to attend exercises when called upon and apparently inspected for readiness and ability.

That doesn't happen anymore. Unless you happen to be in the National Guard, which interestingly fills the bill of being both citizenry, and well regulated.

Well lest see here The Constitution tells us what the govt CANT do to infringe on our inalienable rights. Just because the federal govt defines its ideas of what a Militia is dose not change the meaning in the Constitution. Also dont for get that the Constitutional Convention, and the fledgling Federal govt were not One in the same. While they both share many of the same players, and influences, they are not synonymous, and have the same goals at hand.

I am a carpenter, there for I need a hammer. dose that change the fact that some one other than a carpenter may have use for a hammer. This applies the to the 2a as well. Just because one reason is given to not be denied the use or access to arms, does not make it the only reason. Our Constitution is very much derived from the English Bill of rights from 1689 where even the king of England agreed that free men have the rights to defend them selves with arms. Too bad the English have succumb to Progressive agenda, with knee jerk reactions rather than careful thought out prudent legislation.

here are some quotes to help you understand

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens firearms are indelibly related. - George Washington

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government - George Washington

John Adams (while defending the red coats after the boston Massacre)
Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm them selves at that time, for their defense not for offense - John Adams

Gun laws Only disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most scarred laws of humanity the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. These laws are not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts and not by thoughtful consideration- Thomas Jefferson 1764 quoting Italian Marquis Beccaria, in his "commonplace Book" . Jon Addams used a similar quote during the Boston Massacre trail see above.

Gun control is a example of False Unity, a backwards and irrational approach to crime and prevention that will only make the problem of criminal violence worse. -Thomas jefferson

When the government fears the people there is Liberty, when the people fear the government then there is tyranny - Thomas Jefferson

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.- Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government - Thomas Jefferson

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.- Richard Henry Lee

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people - Tench Coxe,

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority - Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens .... from keeping their own arms. - Sam Adams

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials. - George Mason

Shall I continue to quote founders on this subject to show you what the intentions and implications of the 2a mean and what those words meant???? I can continue for many more pages.


Now the Natioanl Guard HAHAHAHAHAHA please
Do the guard supply their own arms ???
The guard is nothing more than stand by branch of the US military, they dont fill nor fit the role of the Militia.

Oh 2 last quotes.

Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved - Aristotle

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto ( supreme Japanese Navy commander to the emperor of japan shortly before the attack on pearl harbor)

[mar1t1me]

I appreciate all the effort at explaining your positions.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Alkasquawlik]

GOD dammit. Again you are going to make me write a book to explain to you what the 2a means


And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time.

I lol'd at these two parts.

[ACMF74]

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.

[Vedubin01]

I'm not the guy with the fully automatic rifles and stock piling tens of thousands rounds of ammo in the basement

I am that guy, the idea behind stacking deep is because about 6 years ago you could by 1000 rounds of 308 for around $120 shipped. Today that same ammo sells no cheaper than $400 per the same 1000 rounds.


When you shoot full auto, its not the price of the gun that hurts, its the ammo to feed it. Hence having somewhat of a stock pile.


Now there is only a select few that is planning for the TEOTWAWKI. But if you don't have a SHTF bag for local disasters then you are a fool!