California's New CC Ruling

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

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/te...-and-regulars/

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.






.

[Woodcock survey]

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.

[todd allen]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[Kensal Rise]

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?

[Double Lab]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by Daryl Corona

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.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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.