Way, way, way wrong.Originally Posted by Safetyhit
New Jersey has so stunted your thinking I don't think you can be saved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Way, way, way wrong.
New Jersey has so stunted your thinking I don't think you can be saved.
Senior Member
Yeah, kinda this. Actually, I have two new candidates for my ignore list. Love that feature.
Senior Member
Yep. And they're all wrong. It's as simple as that.
If you have a right to X(bear arms, assemble, speak freely, etc.), the minute you put a condition on that, it's no longer a right. Period.
That being said, the current state of the system is that we have no rights left as enumerated in the Constitution. Some, like our well-indoctrinated Jersey crew who think they're free, but actually insist that they be limited to pace back and forth within the limits of their cage, are okay with that. Some of us are not. Being okay with it or not doesn't change it, though.
Senior Member
Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and parts of Montana.
I was just down in Arizona and spoke to several police officers at length on the same subject. They were 100% for Constitutional Carry and weren't worried in the slightest. Quoting one Sgt. "It's Arizona, everybody's got guns!"
Senior Member
Those are more policy enforcement than gun law.
--
• formerly known as "eguns-com"
• M4Carbine required notice/disclaimer: I run eguns.com
•eguns.com has not been actively promoted in a long time though I still do Dillon special
orders, etc. and I have random left over inventory.
•"eguns.com" domain name for sale (not the webstore). Serious enquiries only.
Senior Member
Interesting story... Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...orth-defending
An 80-year-old man who was arrested after shooting a burglary suspect in his South Side home brought renewed attention Tuesday to Illinois gun laws, this time involving whether an elderly resident with weapons convictions from decades ago should have the right to use a gun to defend himself.
Neighbors of Homer Wright, who was described by friends as a "pillar of the community," rallied behind him, calling for prosecutors to drop charges against the senior citizen who shot and injured an intruder who had broken into his Englewood home as Wright and his wife slept.No one questions Wright's claim of self-defense--his problem is his felon status, stemming from the decades-old weapons convictions. Living as he does under Chicago's ultra-restrictive gun laws, of course, "weapons convictions" are very easy to come by. In this ABC News video, Professor Richard Kling, of the Chicago Kent School of Law, outlines the absurdity of the law (emphasis added):
He had an absolute right to defend himself; had he not been convicted of a felony, he would have had an absolute right to shoot the person dead. His problem was not the shooting; his problem was the fact that he possessed a gun which he was not allowed to do because of his prior record as a felon. He certainly could have used a knife; had he used a knife, there would have been no charges. Had he used a bludgeon, there would have been no charges.
Senior Member
I'd like to take the absolute rights position when it comes to the US Constitution. After all, there is something inherently wrong with the notion that certain Amendments are to be interpreted literally, while others can be regulated for our protection. For example, does anyone really want to argue that the 13th Amendment's prohibition on slavery is open to "regulation"? Where is it said which Amendments are absolute and which are open to regulation?
On the other hand, I suspect that our Constitution would look vastly different had SCOTUS taken the absolute rights position to every Amendment. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I'm confident that it would not exist in its current form had there been a ruling that all firearms and destructive devices are legal and unable to be restricted in any way. Such a SCOTUS decision would be met by such a public outcry that a clarification Amendment would easily pass either amendment process, thus removing or severally restricting the Constitutional protection of arms. I can't imagine that more than 10% of Americans would tolerate their neighbors stockpiling M107 HE after a city block goes bye bye from an accidental detonation, or allowing truck-mounted M134's after the first domestic jihadi clear cuts a Jewish community center.
Another issue with absolute rights, particularly when it comes to free speech, is that the Constitution does not address the issue of fraudulent speech - particularly when there is no direct victim. Thus, there is an argument to be made that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional (an issue that is currently being litigated). The issue becomes more clear when the fraudulent speech is coupled with other illegal actions such as collection of money so as to create a victim. However, it gets murky when we deal with isolated individuals who wear a green beret in a bar simply to improve their chances of getting laid.
Last edited by Sensei; 03-31-12 at 00:41.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Senior Member
No, they are laws that are spelled out in federal code. Policies are rules that do not carry the threat of incarceration. You will not be charged with violating a policy when police or the USSS put the handcuffs on for attempting to take a gun past a checkpoint. See below:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/...n-an-aircraft/
You don't face 10 years in federal prison for violating "policy"
Last edited by Sensei; 03-30-12 at 12:34.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Senior Member
The policy may be codified in the law. But they are still more policies in that they affect specific circumstances only -- in the WH, or on a plane. They are not general infringements on the RKBA. They are specific and narrow for specific purposes.
--
• formerly known as "eguns-com"
• M4Carbine required notice/disclaimer: I run eguns.com
•eguns.com has not been actively promoted in a long time though I still do Dillon special
orders, etc. and I have random left over inventory.
•"eguns.com" domain name for sale (not the webstore). Serious enquiries only.
Site Sponsor
Golly, but is that coming from a member here who, like the other no gun law advocates, is well known for extremist, goofy and flat out embarrassing views? One taking sides with (or perhaps even being one of) those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes, I believe it is.
Don't worry about me pal, I'm not down to your level yet. But I do appreciate the concern.
Last edited by Safetyhit; 03-30-12 at 19:25.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks