California's New CC Ruling

[Dean Romig]

In a 7/4 decision California reversed a 2014 decision and says the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not guarantee the right to carry concealed.

Will the last true America to leave California please bring Old Glory?






.

[Rick Losey]

The 9th circus court jurisdiction covers much more than California

It's the western district

[scott kittredge]

What about open carry?

[Pete Lester]

"Open" carry of a handgun, loaded or unloaded was made illegal in California in 2012. Without a CC permit having a handgun in your possession sounds like it could be a crime in that state now.

[Bruce Day]

Open carry in rural or non regulated areas in California remains lawful.

Concealed carry remains lawful if the sherrif issues a permit. Some do, others want proof you need to carry one. Concealed carry differs county to county.

Being in possession of a handgun or any gun is not unlawful , it must be transported in the trunk or a lock box if in the passenger compartment.

There are plenty of true Americans in California.

Remember that until the 2008 Heller decision there was no clear law on the individual right to even posess guns. Before then there was much debate and the 2nd Amendment refers to gun possession in the context of a well regulated militia . If you are a strict constructionist of the constitution then the words well regulated militia are meaningful and place the right to bear arms in context. If you are liberal with the wording then you disregard well regulated militia. Heller was a narrow decision led by Scalia, the NRA is well aware of the issues, when was the last time you saw "well regulated militia " quoted by the NRA rather than just " right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

As for me, I like my shotguns, I like to hunt and I live and hunt in states where both are traditions and popular. But I am well aware of the difficulties with the second amendment and the shifting interpretations. We could be back to pre Heller and the ways things used to be

[John Campbell]

This is preaching to the choir. But for the basically literate, nothing could be more clear in its meaning:

"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."

One must keep in mind that at the time of the Constitution's ratification, the US had NO standing Army, and relied on an armed citizenry for security. Some of them even carried pistols...

Then there's that sticky little phase, "shall not be infringed." If you are unsure, go look up the definition of "infringed."

Also note that the words "hunting, sport," or "recreation" are not part of this Amendment.

[John Truitt]

Well said Mr Campbell.

The key word being Militia. Who is the militia? = we the people/ the citizens of the US.


Three branches of government with checks and balances. We are the checks and balances of the government.

It is a four legged stool not a three legged stool.

It really is not open or up to interpretation.

[Bruce Day]

It's not militia. It's well regulated militia. How are "we the citizens of the United States" well regulated? Maybe the words of the amendment don't mean anything. Let's just forget "well regulated " because it leads to uncomfortable issues.

So what does "well regulated" mean to you? Who regulates? Can any mob of citizens who do not like the decisions of their government grab their AR 15's and storm city hall?

If the wording of the second amendment is so clear that it is not open to interpretation by reasonable minds, why has this issue been so debated and written about for the last 5O years at least? I'm with you, let's just forget "well regulated militia " and let it go at that. It's too inconvenient.

Note the well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's what it says . It doesn't say free people, it says free state. So maybe the state regulates? I'm no expert , you tell me what each and every one of those words mean.

As for the people bearing arms being the checks and balances on the government, did some southerners try that before? Like in 1860?

[Pete Lester]

Open carry in rural or non regulated areas in California remains lawful.

Not after 2012 from what I can find.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB144&search_keywords=

http://smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-in-california/

[Pete Lester]

It's not militia. It's well regulated militia. How are "we the citizens of the United States" well regulated? Maybe the words of the amendment don't mean anything. Let's just forget "well regulated " because it leads to uncomfortable issues.

So what does "well regulated" mean to you? Who regulates? Can any mob of citizens who do not like the decisions of their government grab their AR 15's and storm city hall?

If the wording of the second amendment is so clear that it is not open to interpretation by reasonable minds, why has this issue been so debated and written about for the last 5O years at least? I'm with you, let's just forget "well regulated militia " and let it go at that. It's too inconvenient.

As for the people bearing arms being the checks and balances on the government, did some southerners try that before? Like in 1860?

Sorry Bruce, you really should know better.

The 2nd Amendment was written with the English language as used in the 1700's, how it is used has changed. "Well Regulated" simply meant a working or functional militia. It was not meant to mean "regulated" as in strictly controlled. The 2nd Amendment was not written to give the federal government oversight of the people's right to own firearms, it was written and included in the Bill of Rights so the government would be powerless to control the peoples right to firearms.

[Bruce Day]

I'll remember that. Well regulated doesn't have the plain meaning of well regulated and necessary for the security of a free State doesn't refer to a State at all. My fault.

I like my guns. Off to Montana in September and October, then Minnesota , South Dakota, Oklahoma , Kansas with my guns and bird dogs. I'll assure them that the second amendment is so clear that my individual right to bear arms is not in question . Nothing to be concerned about.

[Pete Lester]

There are political powers that want to limit our freedom when it comes to firearms, they have tried in the past, present and will again in the future.

To get one to believe the term "well regulated" meant any federal government control of firearms one would have to believe that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers wanted to have some degree of control of citizen ownership and use of firearms. Really? This was following a rebellion against British authority who ordered gun control by force following the Boston Tea Party. Let's just say given the events and time period, I don't think so. It was the citizens ownership and use of private firearms that made the Revolution possible.

[Bruce Day]

My ancestors were part of the Massachusetts Militia at the time of the revolution . They drilled, practiced maneuvers, had officers and were regulated. They were not part of unruly and ineffective mobs that could be cut to pieces by trained British infantry . A direct ancestor has a statue in his memory and a town named after him.

Yes I believe that the participants of the early constitutional conventions knew of the importance of the state militias and the ability of citizens to maintain arms in support of those militias. Of that I have no doubt. After the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was disbanded and it was not until 1789 that a single regular Army regiment was formed which had responsibility for a vast amount of territory. Well regulated state militias were of utmost importance. The US has always had a mix of standing and militia forces.

[Pete Lester]

My ancestors were part of the Massachusetts Militia at the time of the revolution . They drilled, practiced maneuvers, had officers and were regulated. They were not part of unruly and ineffective mobs that could be cut to pieces by trained British infantry . A direct ancestor has a statue in his memory and a town named after him.

Yes I believe that the participants of the early constitutional conventions knew of the importance of the state militias and the ability of citizens to maintain arms in support of those militias. Of that I have no doubt.

That's nice Bruce, good for you, my 4th Great Grandfather on my mother's side was a Patriot in the Revolution. I have no idea what they practiced for drills. Militia's were different than "Regulars" and they were considered undisciplined if not unruly by military commanders. When used in combat they were placed in front of the "Regulars", not to give them an advantage, not because they were somehow better, not to make them cannon fodder (at least not deliberately), it was to prevent a disorganized mass retreat in the face of the enemy. They were less likely to do so if they had to run through lines of the Regulars.

[Bruce Day]

We have very different understandings of the role of state militias during the Revolutionary War.

[Bruce Day]

Not after 2012 from what I can find.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB144&search_keywords=

http://smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-in-california/


Read your own citation , smart gun laws. You can still carry a handgun while hunting. There are many exceptions.

[Rick Losey]

the Massachusetts militias of the earliest days were of one class of soldier - they stood their ground on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge, fought a running battle back to Boston and manned "Bunker Hill"

the lesser reputation of the militias was formed by the longer war, they were known for not standing up the the British regulars (a hellatious task) - As the war in the south advanced General Greene and Daniel Morgan used that to their advantage at Cow Pens - the militia was told they were not expected to hold- all that was asked of them was to fire two volleys before they broke. when they did and the British gave chase thinking the field was theirs - they instead ran into steady and firm troops that held and fired and took the day, the devastation of that day led to Guilford Courthouse which drove Cornwallis to fire his cannon into his own troops and forced him to Yorktown in hopes of resupply or rescue

and that is as they say - the rest of the story

[Pete Lester]

We have very different understandings of the role of state militias during the Revolutionary War.

The militias were so lightly regulated they were not considered to be reliable. However in many situations they were effective. At the battle of the Cowpens Brigadier General Daniel Morgan chose to fight on open country with a river in his rear, this was considered high risk as it allowed the British to able to more effectively use their cavalry and provided a difficult route of retreat. It was risky move, when asked why he did this he said "I would not have had a swamp in view of my militia on any consideration; they would have made for it, and nothing could have detained them from it. As to retreat, it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. When men are forced to fight, they will sell their lives dearly. Had I crossed the river, one-half of the militia would immediately have abandoned me."

[Bruce Day]

My great grand mother Nellie Putnam thanks you. The Putnams were at Concord and Bunker Hill. Others were with the Wisconsin Regiments at Gettysburg.

The well regulated state militias of the day in the Revolutionary War and subsequent wars held the line against the best of the enemy.

[Daniel Carter]

I have read in the dim past that in the usage of the day that well regulated referred to well equipped or\and well trained. I do not think the authors had any intention of restrictions.

[Pete Lester]

Read your own citation , smart gun laws. You can still carry a handgun while hunting. There are many exceptions.

Yes provided it is hunting season and you have a hunting license, and they believe you. Of course nothing mentioned about target shooting or open carry for personal defense so no exception there. Cali is certainly not a place where I would want to take a chance having a handgun for any purpose and that is precisely what they are trying to accomplish which apparently you think is smart?

[Pete Lester]

The well regulated state militias of the day in the Revolutionary War and subsequent wars held the line against the best of the enemy.

Seems there are contradictory thoughts on the matter of militias.

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/teaching-materials/bonus-materials/armies-in-the-war-militia-and-regulars/

[Bruce Day]

We have very liberal gun laws out here and I like it that way. No so the east or California.

But I realize that few articles of the Constitution are so argued about and so open to interpretation as the Second Amendment. Seems there are some who are convinced their own interpretation is the only possible one and everyone else is wrong.

[John Campbell]

For the sake of entertainment, let us revisit high school English/grammar:

"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."

This is ONE sentence.
It contains three clauses.
It specifies a "militia" as being necessary for the security of a free State (the USA)
It specifies that militia should be well-regulated. As in not a free-wheeling mob.
It then connects the People with a specific RIGHT: The Right to "keep and bear arms."
It goes further in stating that this Right "shall not be infringed." In other words, limited.

What in God's name is there to "interpret" about any of that?

[Bruce Day]

You are so right. All the courts of appeal, all the judges that have different interpretations are wrong. They know nothing. Case closed.

[Dean Romig]

My great grand mother Nellie Putnam thanks you. The Putnams were at Concord and Bunker Hill. Others were with the Wisconsin Regiments at Gettysburg.


To say nothing of your ancestor Anne Putnam, who in 1692/3 at the age of 11 was partially responsible for the execution of at least four women, she having co-accused them of practicing witchcraft. One of the accused and subsequently executed, Rebecca Nurse, was a good wife and mother residing on the other side of Meeting House Road from the property my family owned in Danvers (formerly Salem Village). I learned to hunt pheasants with a Parker Trojan 12 in the cornfields of the Rebecca Nurse property.

This all just a tidbit I thought would be interesting... Though totally off topic.






.

[George M. Purtill]

You are so right. All the courts of appeal, all the judges that have different interpretations are wrong. They know nothing. Case closed.

Now now lets play nice. We PGCA members are basically on the same page. The real problem is that the folks who interpret this stuff- legislators, people with black robes and the State Capitals or White House are for the most part scared stiff of guns. They never shot skeet, they never hunted, they think all food comes shrink wrapped, they don't own any guns and have never shot one. And the hardest part for us is that they are probably the 3rd or 4th generation in their family who have that in their DNA.
It doesn't matter if they are Ds or Rs. They are far removed from having any knowledge of what they have the power to regulate. And the press who report on this are in the same boat. I guarantee Anderson Cooper never shot a gun.
So the way they look at (interpret) the words are always going to be different than the way we do.
I don't know what my conclusion is.
We have a monumental educational and experiential task ahead to change the people who regulate us. We can scream that this is what the constitution means until we are blue, but if the folks in charge couldn't care less about guns, we are going to lose.
And of course it helps not when some mentally deranged person kills 26 people with a pack of guns.
I'll just shut up.

[Dean Romig]

....or shoots and kills a young singer right after her performance while she is signing autographs.
Those are the kinds of people who, unfortunately, cause all gun owners to be painted with the same brush.






.

[Daryl Corona]

For the sake of entertainment, let us revisit high school English/grammar:

"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."

This is ONE sentence.
It contains three clauses.
It specifies a "militia" as being necessary for the security of a free State (the USA)
It specifies that militia should be well-regulated. As in not a free-wheeling mob.
It then connects the People with a specific RIGHT: The Right to "keep and bear arms."
It goes further in stating that this Right "shall not be infringed." In other words, limited.

What in God's name is there to "interpret" about any of that?

You are clear as a bell John. Keep in mind that liberalism IS a mental disorder. Need I elaborate?

George is also on point. The problem is, D or R, we as a society have become more urban than rural. Bruce has a point. I believe that the country is higher in the middle and everything loose rolls either east or west.

I'm climbing down from my soapbox now and going to shoot one of my guns. That always makes me feel better.:bigbye:

[Mike Franzen]

This is a pic of me standing in the crowded Lobby of the Lexington Hyatt regency. Imagine if I was standing in a lobby in New York or LA. No one was feeling threatened. No one called 911. Security didn't taze me and cuff me. People just looked and admired the gun or walked by. Kentucky has the most liberal gun laws of any state in the union. It's been part of our heritage from the beginning. Thankfully the Pinheads have so far been kept at bay.

[charlie cleveland]

lookin good there mike...charlie

[Jay Gardner]

For the sake of entertainment, let us revisit high school English/grammar:

"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."

This is ONE sentence.
It contains three clauses.
It specifies a "militia" as being necessary for the security of a free State (the USA)
It specifies that militia should be well-regulated. As in not a free-wheeling mob.
It then connects the People with a specific RIGHT: The Right to "keep and bear arms."
It goes further in stating that this Right "shall not be infringed." In other words, limited.

What in God's name is there to "interpret" about any of that?

How ambiguous is this: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?" I would wager that the 1st A has generated far more litigation than the 2nd A.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been litigated for 200+ years. That is one of the responsibilities of the Federal Courts. Anyone who doesn't understand that probably failed Civics 101 in high school. Mr. Day has made the point that the 2nd is no more clear than any other provision of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[David Noble]

This discussion can go on and on here, just as it has for a couple of hundred years in the courts. It is senseless to argue what has already been argued over and over again. If you want to make a difference then pick a side and do something about it. It is called voting, and encouraging others to do the same.
I have no intention of turning this into a political discussion and will not mention any political parties or politicians. That being said, if you generally look at things with a liberal mindset, then you might well consider abortion a women's right to control her own body rather than an unborn childs right to a life. Or you may feel that the financially better off should be required to redistribute the fruits of their labor to support those who choose not to try to excel. And you might also think that a gun, any gun, is a savage device that has no place in a civilized society and that the constitution of the United States is a living document that needs to evolve to represent what you and others that think like you feel is the new and better way, and it is the job of the government to make sure that the change takes place.
Conversely, if you are a more conservative thinker, then you may feel that the founding fathers, though they lived in a different time, knew that they were offering a guideline to a better life for all, then and in the future. Regardless of how they spoke it or wrote it, you can get the drift of what they were trying to accomplish for the people, not the government. A person who has a conservative mindset may understand that there is a lot more at stake than the right to own firearms or protected speech, but those are two things that if lost, would give the government full power over the people. The same thing that happened to Russia, China, Germany, and other repressive countries /regimes in the past. If you think conservatively, then you might cherish what America stands for and how that came to be. It was not by constant change to be like the rest of the world but rather by sticking to a plan that was established by a people that had experienced repression from a government and chose to do something about it.
So pick a side, one that best represents your own mindset, and campaign and vote for the ones who will shape the future to meet your ideals.
It could be a long and hard process but it takes us as citizens to promote and accomplish it.

[Jay Gardner]

You are clear as a bell John. Keep in mind that liberalism IS a mental disorder. Need I elaborate?

Ah, yes. It's all because of Liberals. Ironically, it was Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Republicans, who when governor of California, who signed the law banning concealed carry. He also signed the first assault weapon. Here is a little history to ponder.

Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.

The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision — banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians — that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks — very plausibly — to Ronald Reagan.

[Pete Lester]

I am just glad I got to live where and when I have so far, as George Purtill pointed out society changes over time. It seems to me that as a society loses it's morals it also loses it's rights as they walk hand in hand. So to paraphrase on old cliche, shoot 'em while you got 'em.

Also if you care about your right to own and enjoy a firearm, realize there is only so much you can do; choose where you live, write letters to the editor, donate a few bucks to the NRA. The rest is political theater.

[Mark Ouellette]

Gentlemen,

The .pdf attachment is a long, well written document with references noted which identifies "How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution".

This gives more background than is commonalty known as to why a tyrannical British government of the time feared American colonists having access to firearms, especially those of local militias. That's right, organized local militias, not a national or even state guard force.

Go ahead, give this a good read and tell us what you think.

PS: Great job for most everyone on keeping this thread focused on the issue, not of politics. Yes, that is a difficult thing to do. Thanks all!

Mark

[Rick Losey]

thanks Mark-

many people seem to have a hard time understanding when I try to tell them that the American revolution was a political ARGUMENT up until the point where the government embarked on a concerted mission to disarm the population, and that led the argument to become a shooting war

[Dean Romig]

Yes, when British regulars fired into a group of dissenting colonists.






.

[Jay Gardner]

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

[Rick Losey]

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

i guess I question the term 'literal interpretation" since i only see a single plain language meaning

but yes, based on the experience of the population at that time -can it mean any thing else?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

the text in its entirety


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[John Campbell]

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?


BINGO!

[King Brown]

This respectful and intelligent conversation, particularly its bearing on language, is interesting to me because of the 7-4 California court decision, almost two to one.

As for checks and balances, isn't the current voluminous dissent in both parties because they've worked negatively in the public interest (and have no bearing on language)?

I come here for information and it's pleasing---and a tribute to the board---to see opinions more from a community than partisan politics.

[Jay Gardner]

BINGO!

And this is where I really can't follow the logic as taking up arms (levying war) against the US government is defined in th constitution as treason.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively replaces the bullet with the ballot when it comes to how our country is governed. Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

[todd allen]

You are so right. All the courts of appeal, all the judges that have different interpretations are wrong. They know nothing. Case closed.

Judges are human, and make mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott come to mind.

[todd allen]

I have read in the dim past that in the usage of the day that well regulated referred to well equipped or\and well trained. I do not think the authors had any intention of restrictions.

You are correct. I think the anti-gun lobby would re-order the entire English language to change the meaning of the 2nd A.

[Jay Gardner]

Judges are human, and make mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott come to mind.

In 200+ years of American jurisprudence you will not find one opinion or dissent supporting the literal interpretation of the 2nd A. Pretty hard to argue that mistakes have been made when there is zero case law to support a position.

[Dean Romig]

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?



Stated simply - Yes!

And let us all remember that the right to protect ourselves is NOT granted by a government, but is a God-given right that no person nor entity can take from us.... Ever! And in order for 'the People' to protect themselves they must be as well armed as those who wish to oppress them.






.

[Dean Romig]

Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.



Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.







.

[Jay Gardner]

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.

One can not be a literalist and start speculating on what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote. If you believe the 2nd A is clear and should be construed literally then you must also construe literally Article 3 that provides taking up arms against the government of the US to be treason.

They had been oppressed by a foreign government (England) and they formed a government that gave its citizens a method to govern by and through the people. Oppressive is subjective and relative term, regardless, there are checks and balances in place. At what point do those who feel that the government is oppressing them has the "god given right" (which does not exist) to take up arms against that has been elected by a majority of the country? There is no footnote; no unless; no but if.... The founders made it clear: we are a republic led by people chosen by the people, no matter what those people believe. That is the ONLY way a country can evolve. If they did not truly believe in the evolution of society and its government then they never would have made provisions for amending the constitution. Sorry, there is no legitimate way for our government to function as the founders envisioned that is consistent with legitimate armed insurrection. On that point, the constitution is very clear. They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

[John Truitt]

Well said Mr Romig.

You could not have said it any better.

[John Campbell]

Let me try to aid Mr. Gardner in understanding what he cites: Article III of The United States Constitution:

[B]"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

There may be some perceived difference in "levying war" against the States and defending oneself against tyranny, or assisting in the "security of a free State."

Also, the American colonists were NOT oppressed by a "foreign government." They were oppressed by THEIR OWN government.

And, if oppression is "relative" then what was that Holocaust the Jews have been complaining about?

And sorry. Every creature on the face of the Earth has the God given right to defend itself. Even Jews and gays in an Orlando nightclub.

And as for his last claim, I humbly refer Mr. Gardner to this passage of the Declaration of Independence:

[I]"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


I must emphasize that all this is offered in the cordial spirit of casual debate, with no ill intended toward anyone on this board. Especially Mr. Gardner.

[Robin Lewis]

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


The state of New Hampshire takes this idea to heart.

The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire is the fundamental law of the State of New Hampshire, with which all statute laws must comply. The constitution became effective June 2, 1784, when it replaced the state's constitution of 1776.

The constitution is divided into two parts: a Bill of Rights and a Form of Government.

Part First of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is made up of 43 articles, codifying many of the same natural rights as does the United States Constitution, including free speech, freedom of the press, jury trials, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. It protects citizens against double jeopardy, unreasonable searches and seizures, and being required to quarter soldiers. In most cases, the state constitution affords more specific protections than the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, New Hampshire's Bill of Rights has been amended regularly since its adoption.

Article 10. Right of Revolution

New Hampshire is one of several states that codify a "Right of Revolution" in their state constitutions. The Right of Revolution dates back to the Revolutionary War. Article 10 reads:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I really like living in the "Live Free or Die" state!

[Mike Franzen]

Simply put if, the 2nd A is open to interpretation then I choose to interpret it to mean that it is my God given right to keep and bear arms and if ANYONE tries to take them away from me then I will defend my right unto my death. I can put up with a lot of nonsense but this is the hill I'm willing to die on. Are you?

[Daryl Corona]

I'm with you Mike. I've had enough.

[Jay Gardner]

And it is in the spirit of shared interests that we debate these questions, cordially. Unfortunately there are few forums where one can find civil debate. If one can't debate both sides of issues then they don't fully understand the issues.

If there is any lesson to be learned from American jurisprudence it is there is nothing that is black and white. That is why civil debate is critical in our country.

[George M. Purtill]

If there is any lesson to be learned from American jurisprudence it is there is nothing that is black and white. That is why civil debate is critical in our country.

So true Jay. And the absence of black and white means that there are people with a higher pay grade than we gun owners who will be doing the interpreting and THOSE people don't care about guns or have any experience using them and never did and never will.
Those people of all 3 parties- R and D and IND- are not evil per se. They just don't see why we would ever care about gun ownership.
They have no experience with guns.
We need to reach those people and educate them. Or we will be forever behind the 8 ball.

[Jay Gardner]

So true Jay. And the absence of black and white means that there are people with a higher pay grade than we gun owners who will be doing the interpreting and THOSE people don't care about guns or have any experience using them and never did and never will.
Those people of all 3 parties- R and D and IND- are not evil per se. They just don't see why we would ever care about gun ownership.
They have no experience with guns.
We need to reach those people and educate them. Or we will be forever behind the 8 ball.


Sad but so true. What's become of us? We all grew up hunting and shooting when we were just as likely to have a shotgun as a basketball. There was nothing evil or suspect about it. People are making gobs of money off this fight, pitting one side against another. Those are the ones we all need to take our anger out on. Those who exploit these shootings (and make no mistake, the are exploiters on both sides of these issues).

[Tom Pellegrini]

WOW!! What an informative discussion. Really good straight forward opinions, and we all have a right to have an opinion. Just as Mr. Campbell put it a "civil debate". I myself took it as a mini history lesson. I want to thank all the contributors to this thread it was an interesting read. Thank you again.
Tom P.

[Dean Romig]

People are making gobs of money off this fight, pitting one side against another. Those are the ones we all need to take our anger out on. Those who exploit these 'incidents' (and make no mistake, the are exploiters on both sides of these issues).


My, my... we may as well be discussing "global warming" as gun rights.

Indeed - what's become of us?






.

[Paul Harm]

Thank you Mark, Kensal and Robin - very, very good posts. If some would step back and see where the 2A was written - in the Bill of Rights - those are God given rights - not governments rights. I don't understand what anyone finds difficult to understand who's rights they where writing about.

[Bruce Day]

Can somebody help me find Gods words in the Bible where it says I can have an assault rifle ? I'm no biblical scholar but when when I find it there I'm going to buy a full auto M 16. Would it be Old Testament or New?

[Bruce Day]

No assault rifle. Maybe God says it is my right to have a shotgun. I'll take a Parker , surely that is in the Bible .

Or if not that , how about at least a Marlin bolt action shotgun. Old or New Testament ?

[Mark Ouellette]

Here you go! Not the Bible but our Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...

[Bruce Day]

Yep that's the Bible. Got it. Gods word, right in the Declaration of Independence. God wrote the Declaration of Independence.

And Gods word in the Declaration of Independence says I can have a rifle or shotgun all my own to smite people , right ?

By the way, Joel Osteen says God wants me to have a Cadillac. Guess I am entitled and ordered.

[Mark Ouellette]

Who is to say that our founding fathers were not inspired by God? While not perfect by any means, our country being a hodge podge of almost every culture in the world somehow survives and in most recent decades, leads the world. Not a bad afternoon's work for, well your guess is as good as mine.

[Jeff Higgins]

I don't believe anyone said it is in the Bible to own any particular type of firearm. Just that they believe it is a God given right to defend themselves. If you don't wish to defend yourself or loved ones fine, just don't tell me I can't. If you don't think certain types of firearms are necessary don't buy one. Again just don't tell me I can't. I do hope God forbid that if I am ever attacked the bad guy has a Musket. That way maybe my AR will give me the upper hand do to my diminishing shooting skills. If we gun owners are divided we are doomed. They take my AR today your Parker and Deer rifle are next.

[Bruce Day]

Look, I like my shotguns and rifles, I've always owned guns. The Second Amendment is not as clear as some people would like to believe or behave , God never said you can have a gun, and the thing that keeps reasonable gun laws are elected officials. So vote for whom you want.

You fellows who demand all or nothing on the assault rifles I fear may sink us all. There will come a point when the anti gun folks throw us all in the same pot and cook us all and my ability to own a few hundred year old shotguns will be compromised because of the insistence of some people to own butt ugly assault rifles.

I'm going fishing.

[Dean Romig]

As far as "they" are concerned, we can hang together or we can hang separately... but hang we all will if "they" have their way.

I say we stick together - what say you?





.

[Mark Ouellette]

As far as "they" are concerned, we can hang together or we can hang separately... but hang we all will if "they" have their way.

I say we stick together - what say you? .

I'm with you Dean. It is documented in plans on anti-gun groups to chip away at gun rights, on at a time. Finally they plan to tax the heck of ammo and guns so that while we may still have the right to a muzzleloader, very few will be able to afford them!

Besides, the second amendment isn't about antique collector guns as much as it is about having the ability as a people to defend against a tyrannical government. I can think of better weapons than a Parker or Colt SAA for that. I however pray I never see the need. But hey, as long as a good portion of the American population has Parkers, Colts, bolt action rifles, AR's and AK's we never will have a tyrannical government!

[Daryl Corona]

I hope your are playing the role of the devil's advocate here Bruce as you have fallen into the media's "assault rifle" hogwash. I don't own an AR platform rifle nor do I wish to own one. But many of my friends do and they use them the same way we use our double guns: to hunt with and to target shoot. If I "assaulted" someone with a handgun or even with one of my Parkers would'nt that be deemed an assault weapon? The AR platform rifle is nothing more than the evolution of the musket available in 1776, much like the hammerless shotgun is the evolution of the matchlock weapon.

Lawmakers DO NOT give us the right to own weapons, the 2nd amendment does. I'ts just that simple. The Declaration also assures us certain unalienable rights; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All three are protected by the 2nd Amend. I'm certainly not a black helicopter kind of guy but when things go to hell in a handbasket, which they will, you can defend your property with a lovely graded Parker. I'll take an AR with a couple thousand rounds loaned to me by my one of my "black gun" buddies.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

[John Campbell]

Lest we forget...

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-- Rev. Martin Niemoller

OR, at the moment:

First they came for the AR-15s, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an AR-15.

Then they came for the all the Assault Rifles, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an Assault Rifle.

Then they came for ALL the semi-autos, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own a semi-auto.

Then they came for my Parker—and there was no one left to speak for me.


It is worth noting that in Nazi Germany, as in many other totalitarian states, the rights, property and lives of citizens were taken with the acquiescence, complicity and/or full cooperation of politicians, courts, judges, lawyers, police - and unquestioning military leaders and personnel. Thus, the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the concept of an "illegal order."

[Jeff Higgins]

I agree God never said I could own a gun. But I don't believe he ever said I couldn't own one either. I will use Ct. as a example of how a wedge was driven between the self defense type of gun owner and the Hunter/ collector types. The Hunter/ collector types did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the self defense types. You would hear them make comments about ugly Assault rifles. How they would not own such a thing, you don't need one for hunting or you don't need a mag that holds more than X amount for Hunting. Basically looking down their noses at those types of firearms and those type of firearm owners. It did not affect their firearm hobby so they did not care. So laws were passed. Well guess what. I lost count of how many guys walked into the store to buy a new shotgun to hunt or shoot clays with and were shocked to find out they can't without a permit. What do you mean I can't buy one anymore with my hunting license or a two week wait? I thought that was just for those ugly assault rifles! Or the guys who came in the Friday before opening day to pick up ammo to find out they can't buy it without a permit. My favorite was the 30 year retired FBI agent that could not buy ammo because he did not have a permit. I really felt bad for the guys that lost out on firearms for Christmas or birthday presents because their wives or relatives had no way to purchase them. I remember another guy that has a really extensive Browning Hi-Power collection, he wasn't to happy about 10 round mags only. I don't fish much anymore but I will defend your right to do so because my kids and grandkids like to.

[G. Wells]

Following is a discussion from Reason.org, the Libertarian website which is definitely pro gun and I think addresses many of the comments on this forum:




"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Another appeals court has reached a somewhat different conclusion, and the question is bound eventually to demand the attention of the Supreme Court.

On the general topic of gun rights, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump strongly differ. He got the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, and she won the support of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He calls her "the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office." She favors new restrictions she describes as "common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."

What makes the debate so important is that the basic meaning of the amendment is still being figured out. The Supreme Court has found it guarantees an individual right to own a gun for self-defense—as distinct from a collective right to bear arms in a state militia. But the justices have not ruled on the constitutionality of a variety of regulations.

One of those is California's policy on carrying concealed guns in public. It allows only those with permits to do so and is stingy in giving them out. Anyone who wants a license has to convince the county sheriff she has "good cause" for it. Among the reasons that don't qualify are "self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)."

A lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the law. But on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it, saying, "There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The odd part was its admission that the Constitution may protect the right of citizens to carry guns openly. California doesn't allow that, either, but the open-carry ban, the court said, was not challenged in this case.

Its verdict diverges from a 2012 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which struck down Illinois' near-total ban on concealed carry. "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense" recognized by the Supreme Court, that court concluded. "A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to decide who's right. How it would have ruled in Antonin Scalia's day was hardly certain. But its Second Amendment opinions imply that the Second Amendment prerogative to employ a gun for personal protection extends beyond one's front door.

In 2008, the court listed various restrictions it considered permissible: "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." The list's omission of laws against carrying guns in public was conspicuous.

The justices found that many 19th-century courts allowed states to forbid carrying concealed weapons—while noting that some struck down laws against carrying guns openly. But the right to "bear arms" doesn't sound as though you are entitled just to sleep with a pistol on your nightstand.

If the right to self-defense applies beyond the home, states can hardly forbid law-abiding citizens to venture out in public without the means to protect themselves. A dissenting judge in the California case reached the sensible conclusion: States may ban concealed carry or open carry but not both.

The two landmark Second Amendment cases were decided by 5-4 votes, with Scalia in the majority. Without him, the eight remaining justices might be evenly divided on concealed-carry bans. So the next person to join the court could ultimately cast the deciding vote.

As a general, practical rule, it may not matter much how the Supreme Court finally rules on this question. Most states enacted permissive concealed-carry laws on their own and would keep them regardless.

But it matters in principle, and in some states—like Illinois and California—it matters in practice. To a voting public that includes nearly 13 million people with concealed-carry permits, it will certainly matter on Election Day.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Jay Gardner]

Thats really the nut of it: if you have a constitutional right to carry openly then do you have a constitutional right to carry concealed which is an interesting question and one that probably should be decided by the SCOTUS. I do think there needs to be uniformity throughout the states. I have a permit to carry concealed in MI and there is reciprocity with many states but I have to check with other states before I can carry elsewhere.

[Jay Gardner]

Question: I think it is pretty safe to say that regardless how you interpret the 2nd A there are people who for one reason or another should not be carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise. Reasons that go beyond the standard prohabitions against purchasing a firearm. (I wouldn't trust half the people in my CPL class with a pair of sissors let alone a handgun). How do you prevent those people from carrying a firearm?

[Jim DiSpagno]

Look up the definitions of both "assist" and " weapon". After you understand their meanings, put the words together and you can make the case that the use of any inanimate object used in the commission of an attack on another human would be an "assault weapon". So let's drop the misnomer applied to firearms that just look like something made for military or law enforcement use and properly call them by name.

[scott kittredge]

As far as "they" are concerned, we can hang together or we can hang separately... but hang we all will if "they" have their way.

I say we stick together - what say you?





.

we are in the pot of water , they are slowly turning up the heat, before you know it, we are cooked! with you Dean, stick together!

[Russell E. Cleary]

However subject to personal interpretation, historical context, etc., the document preponderantly imposes limitations on government, relative to the individual, and not the other way around.

We have the law largely on our side; the political culture is another matter.

Take a non-shooter -- better yet, his whole family -- shooting.
____________________________
THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Bruce Day]

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

"Well regulated" is not defined in the acts of Congress that I know of.

[Bruce Day]

And by virtue of being in the Militia of the United States, the Constitution , see below, provides for organizing , arming , and disciplining the Militia , see further below.

[scott kittredge]

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

"Well regulated" is not defined in the acts of Congress that I know of.

I would like to see sec.57 and 59

[Jay Gardner]

While all of this information is relevant keep in mind that courts are the final arbiter when if comes to interpretation of our laws as provided in the constitution. Again, nothing is black and white.

[John Campbell]

... courts are the final arbiter when if comes to interpretation of our laws as provided in the constitution. Again, nothing is black and white.

Gotcha. Kind of like the Nuremberg Laws? The Fugitive Slave Act?

In the spirit of fuller disclosure of course.

[Dean Romig]

While all of this information is relevant keep in mind that courts are the final arbiter when if comes to interpretation of our laws as provided in the constitution. Again, nothing is black and white.


And even the Supreme Court of the United States of America is made up of human beings, each with his or her own beliefs and each being the product of his or her own 'environment' in their formative years and today living close to those beliefs that may have been imposed upon them by parents or the society in which they lived or choose to live in today and continue to associate with..... These people, appointed to their positions, some of whom may be predisposed to be anti-gun (for reasons discussed above) are tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that it must be followed and adhered to by each and every American citizen...:shock:

Yup, I guess nothing is black and white...

And democracy truly is an imperfect system of government... but it's the best we have ever found and has been proven to be the most fair to all citizens.






.

[Rick Losey]

Yup, I guess nothing is black and white...

And democracy truly is an imperfect system of government... but it's the best we have ever found and has been proven to be the most fair to all citizens.

.

A common misconception - however we are a republic not a democracy Which adds more grey

Which results in many rural areas -upstate New York or Northern California for example - being represented by people selected by high density urban populations, instead of someone who may closer reflect their views


An example of the impact is that nearly all the counties in NY oppose the "safe act". But the 5 bourghs of the NYC support it

[Dean Romig]

Okay... we're a republic with a democratic form of government..... nit-picker:p






.

[Rick Losey]

Slow day :rotf:

[Bruce Day]

Go watch Fox News. That will get you all worked up.

As for me on this hot day, I'm just kicking back and waiting for delivery on the Cadillac that Joel Osteen says God has waiting for me.

[Robin Lewis]

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.

[Hal Sheets]

Robin, Well said. Right On !

[Jay Gardner]

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.

So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?

[Robin Lewis]

So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?

Yep, I do. These rights are extended to all the "people" that make up the religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations thereby the organizations have these same rights. Take away the people and they lose these rights.

[Dean Romig]

Only insofar as the constitution specifically includes them... IMHO

They have no right to pretend the constitution protects them by attempting to identify themselves as individuals and claim protection under the Bill of Rights.

And I agree that without the "people" these entities are not protected.





.

[John Campbell]

...without the "people" these entities are not protected.


Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Bruce Day]

Regarding individual gun rights and the Second Amendment,

I think it does too, but it is not as clear a statement as some would believe or act like they believe and you have to go beyond the words of the amendment to reach that conclusion. Scalia thought so too and he wrote the landmark and narrow majority Heller decision with that in mind. He was perhaps the best friend gun owners could have. With him gone and more people turning against gun owners because of wacko shootings we lose public goodwill. Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like.

Because of these military style weapons the public turns against us and may fail to distinguish one gun from another. The AK and AR crowd tells us we must stand together, no wonder , they need the support now for the problems these weapons have created.

[Jay Gardner]

Think Heller was the right decision but I disagree with Citizens United. Unless corporations can be held to the same responsibilities as an individual they should not enjoy the same protections.

[Pete Lester]

No assault rifle. Maybe God says it is my right to have a shotgun. I'll take a Parker , surely that is in the Bible .

Or if not that , how about at least a Marlin bolt action shotgun. Old or New Testament ?



Good old David of David and Goliath fame was not in the military and not a law enforcement officer, he was a boy, a boy who had learned to use a rock and a sling (presumably with God's help) against bears and lions before he took down Goliath. David, an underage youth, possessed the lethal weaponry of the day for non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by David were not toy sling shots if they could kill large animals and Goliath. So the Bible speaks of God's people packing heat back in the day and God helped their aim be true.

[Pete Lester]

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

If you are recalled to active duty with the U.S. Military you are not part of the "militia" ( a bit surprising to me that you would not know that). The standing active duty military is not the militia. The National Guard , which didn't exist until 1903, created by the Dick Act is not the militia.

This was addressed and clarified in 1982 by the Senate's Judiciary Committee, Sub-committee on the Constitution, in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."

The bottom line all the arms, the munitions, the armament and equipment of both the Active Duty Military and National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.

With regard to a standing military and the 2nd Amendment, here's the voice of a more obscure founding father.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, , August 17, 1789

[Robin Lewis]

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, , August 17, 1789

Amazing what one can learn at this web site!

[Rick Losey]

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), writing the majority opinion - wrote that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole.


In his opinion there is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.

honestly - to think these word smiths used the term "PEOPLE" in WE THE PEOPLE and 4 other amendments but meant something completely different in just the second amendment stretches credibility even for an activist judge

[Paul Harm]

" Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like. " Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Also, united we stand, divided we fall. Some of us like Parkers, some pistols, some target rifles; but let us not disregard anyone's gun rights just because we don't play their game or like the way their gun looks. I never saw a AR jump up and shoot anyone all by itself.

[Bruce Day]

We are in a public perception problem because of the support of some people for assault military style weapons, and now those people want everyone to support them.

No thanks. My old shotguns didn't cause the problem.

The solution is direct. If you feel that you must have one of these black guns for whatever reason , then work with the BATFE to create a subclass of weapons similar to the permitted fully automatic ones, where there are significant restrictions and fees for ownership. That system has so far been successful in keeping out the wackos. Maybe the NRA should spearhead that effort.

[Pete Lester]

Once a mass shooting is committed by someone wielding a shotgun loaded up with buck shot and shooting people in close quarters those with an eye for gun control will look at us and our Parker shotguns. They won't care that ours are double barrels or antiques, they will be lumped in with all shotguns.

I believe the Germans hated the use of the Winchester M97 aka Trench gun, by the USMC in WWI they filed a diplomatic protest that it was an inhumane weapon of war. Kind of funny that came from the side who first used poison gas, but it showed how much they hated a Marine and his trench sweeper.

It was reported the M97 in slam fire mode with 00 buck would clear a trench faster than any of the full auto weapons of the time.

[scott kittredge]

look ,They want them all!

[Bruce Day]

Well Pete that's like the speeders saying to the non speeders to stand with them because speed limits will affect everybody.

[Paul Harm]

Maybe some one person should take some time off and go to work for those wanting to disarm us and help write some new gun laws. This is absurd. First the AR's, then our pistols, then YOUR shotguns. The 2D Amendment says " not infringe". That isn't hard to understand. Or is it?

[Pete Lester]

In the meantime, in case none of you noticed, the Islamic terrorists have been winning the war on terror. Oh the military has been fighting them in the style of the last war but the enemy has made great gains, much more so than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. We have expanded the size and reach of our government, placed greater restrictions and inconveniences on the population, our government spying on the general population without specific cause as never before, we have people afraid to talk to the police about suspicious activity of their neighbors or coworkers because of fear of being called a racists and possible action taken against them for it, and now we have not just the general public, but gun owners suggesting restrictions on ownership and carry of firearms in spite of the fact we lived with the Bill or Rights and the 2nd Amendment for 240 years. Our enemies have and are continuing to change our way of life, restricting our freedoms and many in this country go along with it willingly. Sad.

[Pete Lester]

Well Pete that's like the speeders saying to the non speeders to stand with them because speed limits will affect everybody.

Your analogy is Red Herring and you know it, or at least you should. Driving on public roads is clearly a privilege granted by government. It is not an individual right defined and protected by the Constitution.

[scott kittredge]

xxx

[Jay Gardner]

I just have a hard time imagining Hancock, Jefferson, et. reacting to the shootings that involved AR-type firearms, especially Newtown, and thinking an unrestricted right to own these weapons is exactly what we envisioned.

[Paul Harm]

Well, this thread got me to thinking. In the past I've let a shotgun out of the safe, next to loaded shells. None of them have ever gotten up, loaded their self and went looking to shoot someone. So just to see, I took one of my AR's out of the safe and set it next to a loaded clip, and went back upstairs. I'll be damn. That butt ugly AR loaded the clip, racked a shell in the chamber, and was creeping up the stairs. Never again. Now I know, AR's are a problem.
What we envisioned back then was the citizen was the military and everyone had the same type of weapon. What was envisioned was that armed citizens would keep the government honest. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment - to keep the government honest - not to shoot SxS's, not to hunt or shoot clays, or paper targets. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves every time another gun law is enacted or ask for one to be enacted. Wake up and read some history.

[Robin Lewis]

It's not the gun, it's not the gun, it's not the gun...... it's the person using the gun!

To be making the distinction between a Parker and an AR is something a California elected official would try to sell. A gun is made up of common components, a tube to direct something, some kind of force to get an object to move down that tube and some type of projectile to travel at high speed in a chosen direction. To try to make a distinction between a "zip gun" made from a pipe, nail and a shell or an antique double gun or a "black" AR is foolish; a gun is a gun and some people want to take them ALL away. Don't encourage them to take the other guys, because your's will be next.

Rather than trying to make the distinction between an AR and a Parker, we would be better served to try to educate the ill informed that all guns shoot deadly projectiles and its not the gun that needs to be addressed but the actions of those using them. Push for harsh actions on anyone using a gun illegally and stand up for anyone using them for valid personal protection, hunting and target shooting.

A nut job recently flew a commercial airliner into a mountain side but I didn't hear anyone blame the aircraft. More people are killed each year by medical errors than guns but we don't hear a call to eliminate doctors or hospitals. Thousands are killed on our highways because of distracted drivers using cell phones but nobody calls for the elimination of cell phones. Pass all the laws you want, none of these problems will be resolved as a result. Take away all guns and there will still be murders; think Cane and Able.

They don't want to take all our guns to protect us, they want them all to protect themselves from "we the people" who can keep them from going even more over the edge and stop them from abusing the powers we grant them.

By the way, the cell phone issue could be solved and I have written officials and corporations on how to solve the problem, but for obvious monetary reasons, nothing will be done. Solution..... Cell phones have GPS devices built into them, so imagine all phones disabling their keypads if the phone is moving in excess of 10 MPH (except for 911). Distracted drives eliminated and hands free enforced; no texting possible. In the few years after everyone upgrades, problem solved.

[John Campbell]

It looks like the Mr. Gardner's unflagging regard for the Greater Wisdom of government courts and lawyers may have found a sympathetic ear:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/ny-times-editorial-congress-should-secretly-suspend-second-amendment-rights

A secret court to relieve citizens of their Second Amendment Rights!!? And ALL without that bothersome "due process." Brilliant!

[Jay Gardner]

With all due respect to Fox News (cough, cough) I'd prefer to read the OpEd piece itself and drawing my own conclusions as to what it says. As for the premise of your statement, I'm not seeing anything where the government is actually doing that. Yes, there have been efforts to prevent those on the "no-fly" list from being able to purchase firearms (which seems like a no-brainer until you consider the issue of due process).

How about providing. Link to the OpEd piece to which Fox was referring?

[todd allen]

It just makes me cringe when I see some members of what is probably the smallest firearms demographic there is, join sides with the antis to go after the largest firearm demographic in America.
The AR 15 is THE most popular rifle in America. The SxS, by comparison, would be statistically non-existent.
Sacrificing others rights to save your own is like feeding your friends to the alligators, hoping they eat you last.

[Jay Gardner]

Wonder how many of you have actually read the Heller decision. In Heller, Scalia went to great pains to limit the scope of the courts ruling. The court emphasized that the need for self-defense is “most acute” in the home, leaving open the possibility for a different standard in public. It also characterized handguns as the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” suggesting other guns might be regulated differently. Moreover, Scalia cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on certain “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” He listed a few, including prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and in “sensitive places.” Even the court’s relatively expansive list, Scalia explained, did “not purport to be exhaustive.” In McDonald, the court repeated Heller’s explicit limitations.

[Paul Harm]

Maybe you to should quit wasting your time here and spend it more productively trying to get more gun laws pasted. I can hear HRC calling out to you now.

[Jay Gardner]

Maybe you to should quit wasting your time here and spend it more productively trying to get more gun laws pasted. I can hear HRC calling out to you now.

Don't make assumptions, Paul. As I said before if you can't debate both sides of an issue then you don't understand the issues. It's simple as that. Anyone who honestly believes the debate over the 2nd is ridiculous is very naive.

[Paul Harm]

The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.

[Bruce Day]

[QUOTE=Paul Harm;197182]The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.[/QUOTE

So lifetime gun owners and hunters are not pro gun unless they agree with you?

Well hell , just take em out and shoot em because they have to be a Democrat !!

[Stephen Hodges]

We all have a "dog in this fight", we just differ on how we want OUR dog to fight. But in the end I bet we are all united in the fact that we want our gun rights preserved for us and future generations. If everyone had the same opinions it would be a boring world.

[Jay Gardner]

It looks like the Mr. Gardner's unflagging regard for the Greater Wisdom of government courts and lawyers may have found a sympathetic ear:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/ny-times-editorial-congress-should-secretly-suspend-second-amendment-rights

A secret court to relieve citizens of their Second Amendment Rights!!? And ALL without that bothersome "due process." Brilliant!

As is usually the case Fox spins a story that is a little less than comprehensive. Here is the OpEd John mentioned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/opinion/time-for-a-no-buy-list-on-guns.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

[Bruce Day]

Fox and the Huffington Post have equal incredibility . Relying on either leads to great entertainment but little enlightenment.

[Paul Harm]

The anti gun peoples agenda is to keep chipping away until all guns are banned. First the AR type rifles, then any semi auto rifles and pistols, then your near and dear shotguns. I strongly feel you're either pro gun or anti gun - there's not much wiggly room. If you think a type of rifle should be banned because of the way it looks, or how many shells it holds, that's your privilege, but you're doing just what the antis want.

[Jay Gardner]

The anti gun peoples agenda is to keep chipping away until all guns are banned. First the AR type rifles, then any semi auto rifles and pistols, then your near and dear shotguns. I strongly feel you're either pro gun or anti gun - there's not much wiggly room. If you think a type of rifle should be banned because of the way it looks, or how many shells it holds, that's your privilege, but you're doing just what the antis want.

How about posting a link to the "anti gun people's" agenda? Not some NRA rhetoric, a link to the source you are basing your opinion on?

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

I will only kennel republican dogs, heck I had to say that! As for this discussion, We should be glad we live in a country that lets us say our peace, but wait that amendment might be taken too! Voice your concerns to your senators and congressmen about the issues that are being discussed here, they like votes and if enough call, they will listen! Gary

[Jim DiSpagno]

Good advice Gary