I support the law that says if two men about to kick down your door in the middle of the night to plunder your home are confronted with a loaded weapon, they will lie on the ground and comply with your wishes. I have seen that law in action and......I like it!
Yes you can. You can have lots of things. You can have totalitarian governments. You can have poverty. You can have famine. You can have disease. Lots of things can be had. That doesn't mean they are desirable. I have no desire to have gun control. Thanks anyway. Rich
Where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did the Founders leave it up to the states to impose gun restrictions?
None of which changes the fact that the language of the studies demonstrates the findings are hypothetical guesswork at best.
First and foremost, it is a mistaken assumption that there is any allegiance between myself, and the NRA, or any other organization. Such is simply not the case. Second, the ATF has demonstrated a long and documented history of engaging in blatantly illegal practices, but facing no legal consequences for such. Third, it is not the lack of manpower on the part of the ATF, that is resulting in judges and prosecutors not pursuing charges against convicted felons found in possession of firearms. The ATF has no say over such matters at the local level, so the fault is at the individual state level. None of the above does anything to change the fact that, as it is in the united states right now, firearm-related restrictions are simply not being enforced against those who cannot legally possess firearms to begin with.
Re-read my post very carefully, and discern how I feel about restrictions, because you have glossed over many important bits that show that I favor no so called "Restrictions" on a Constitutional Right......
Exactly. So if we are talking about the Second and Tenth Amendments why did you suggest that I was talking about the Fourteenth? You suggested this: I am saying I disagree with that." I interpret the Second Amendment to be one of the powers "delegated to the United States" mentioned in the Tenth Amendment. Meaning the Second Amendment, as part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is to be applied to the Nation as a whole. Other powers are reserved to the States and the people but the arms issue was already decided at the national level. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Rich
I disagree but I also believe that the founders couldn't believe nor anticipate that we'd have gun laws like are existent in states like California
So you don't think the phrase "shall not be infringed" really means that? Are you suggesting that states have the right to limit gun ownership?
Uh...... Pardon My ignorance, however, 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." Then; AMENDMENT ll "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." I find no acceptable basis, for restrictions, By the State, on the Right to keep and bear Arms, above and beyond the concept of safe firearms handling and not endangering public safety in any substantial manner.
I believe we are saying the same thing. The individual states should have no authority to regulate gun ownership. Right?
When it comes to Civil Rights neither the Federal Government nor the States can legislate or enforce any laws that violate Constitutionally upheld Civil Rights, such as Freedom of speech, Religion, the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Local law enforcement is the main enforcer of gun laws. It is at the local level where criminals get the revolving door. I support gun control, being able to control the gun to keep it on target.
Oh boo hoo, poor poor B.A.T.F.E., cry me a river De-Nile, while this agency performs and has many good functions as far as law enforcement, and extreme expertise as far as identification of elements in investigations, it also has an atrocious record for over stepping boundaries and persecution of petty violations of various firearms laws, that should be stricken from the books such as barrel length and stocks and experiments with full auto. As long as no danger to the public, is attempted or planned. Much of B.A.T.F.E. function is redundant and should be covered by State legislation, If indeed States have legislative Authority over Firearms. ******Sarcasm alert****....
The NRA does not wield the power that many seem to think it does. It doesn't even make the top 20 for lobbying spending: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2017
The article you cite is from 2003. Ricker worked for the NRA in the early 1980's. He died in December of 2009. Ricker's comments might have some relevance were it not for the fact that he is not really a reliable source as he lost his standing in the community of gun owners when he met with President Clinton to talk about gun control measures. He was no longer employed by the NRA. He subsequently lost his post as Executive Director of the American Shooting Sports Council. After this he was disgruntled and appears to have been trying to "get even". http://host.madison.com/ct/news/nra...cle_eac60416-0868-11e0-8b0d-001cc4c03286.html
I think the only gun control laws that may violate the Second Amendment are those that would prohibit people from obtaining militia type weaponry. People here haven't explained how the non-militia interpretation of "shall not be infringed" is logically consistent with the Fifth Amendment which allows property to be taken with due process of law.
It says "shall not be infringed". There is no wiggle room there. If you understand what "well regulated" means there is no inconsistency.
So "shall not be infringed" doesn't allow gun control but "well regulated" allows it? Make up your mind.
