Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This bill won't change that, states will still have their own individual laws that you'll have to know and abide by, you just won't have to jump through hoops and pay out the wazoo to get a non resident carry permit, your resident permit will be good throughout the country in states that allow carry.
A problem that was pointed out in today's GOA email, that since Vermont doesn't require a concealed carry permit, VT residents won't have the legal right to carry in other states, unless VT initiates a permit system.
Seems to me the solution there is simple -- give permits to EVERY legal resident of Vermont, free for the asking, so their rights won't be denied by other states.
Tho in truth, we should all have the VT system, problem solved for good.
More out of curiosity than anything else, but I can't see why the second amendment (the pure text, there might be historical interpretations and implementations that I don't know of) hinders gun legislation and even restriction.
It's written vaguely, in my opinion, and from what I can see, doesn't state anything about a ban on further restriction and legislation.
My point is this: Do people who think the government can't restrict small arms (pistols and rifles) also believe that any and all citizen who can procure it has the legal right to ownership of Ground to air missiles and other heavy artillery? Because I don't see how one can fight for the rights of one type of arms, based on the second amendment, but not also be in favor of legal ownership of the second.
To clarify my position: I have no problems with strict restrictions on firearms, particularly those with no hunting use, but since everyone else "has one" I want one too, and will purchase a firearm shortly (within a month, most likely). In general, I think restricting or strictly enforcing the access to firearms is a good thing, but I realize it's not a terribly likely scenario in the US, which isn't historically ready for it yet.
Glad to see that the Republicans are continuing to pursue their jobs agenda with such single-minded fervor.
This is a co-sponsored bill "H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.),"
Your political rant does not belong here.
My point is this: Do people who think the government can't restrict small arms (pistols and rifles) also believe that any and all citizen who can procure it has the legal right to ownership of Ground to air missiles and other heavy artillery? Because I don't see how one can fight for the rights of one type of arms, based on the second amendment, but not also be in favor of legal ownership of the second.
To clarify my position: I have no problems with strict restrictions on firearms, particularly those with no hunting use, but since everyone else "has one" I want one too, and will purchase a firearm shortly (within a month, most likely). In general, I think restricting or strictly enforcing the access to firearms is a good thing, but I realize it's not a terribly likely scenario in the US, which isn't historically ready for it yet.
Owning a FIM92 Stinger would be cool. But it's a bit expensive and not too practical. Obviously, munitions of those type are highly regulated. Same with automatic weapons. They are pretty effective too - only one murder (by a police officer I think) has ever occured using an automatic weapon since the time it was regulated (in the 30's after the Bonnie and Clyde days). I don't think any murders or crimes have occured using surfact to air missles in the US.
Now of course, a total gun ban would work as well as prohibition works. Which means, it wouldn't work. Plus it's very clear what the founding fathers had in mind with the 2nd ammendment - they did not want all the guns to be held by the government. If history taught us anything, it's that disarming the people is the first step to loss of freedom. That has been documented since the time of edged weapons.
Now we have a equilibrium of sorts. Most states are (and all states should be) "shall issue" concealed carry states. A few luditte communities and states are out there - California ("may issue" - which means only the rich and powerful are allowed permits), Illinois (no carry provision at all), Washington DC, NYC. In spite of my original post, I have no problems with weapons being regulated to a certain degree. If they want me to take a class, get fingerprinted, etc to get my carry permit that's OK. I did all that. Automatic weapon? OK if I wanted one I would get the proper licenses. Waiting periods? Ok, I can live with that. These are all, technically, unconstitutional but I am willing to live with it. If this new law makes it easy to carry between states that have carry provisions, I am all for it. What I am against is any law that prevents a person from owning or using a weapon in self defense. Not regulating, but banning. And some laws - "may issue" laws in particular, are just another version of banning firearm ownership. Laws prohibiting concealed carry (with a permit) like Illinois are equivelent to banning weapons and the ability to defend yourself. That is what should be addressed at the federal level and by the NRA, not reciprocity laws.
Current polls taken on gun laws show a general comfort with current gun legislation. Most of the US is pro gun ownership. That shows, even if technically unconstitutional, our laws have reached that middle point of compromise where most everyone is comfortable with it. For Illiniois and California and NYC? Well, I simply won't live there. Live free or die!
and a note to moderators (not the one I am answering)- we self-police our forums, one way or another.
More out of curiosity than anything else, but I can't see why the second amendment (the pure text, there might be historical interpretations and implementations that I don't know of) hinders gun legislation and even restriction.
It's written vaguely, in my opinion, and from what I can see, doesn't state anything about a ban on further restriction and legislation.
My point is this: Do people who think the government can't restrict small arms (pistols and rifles) also believe that any and all citizen who can procure it has the legal right to ownership of Ground to air missiles and other heavy artillery? Because I don't see how one can fight for the rights of one type of arms, based on the second amendment, but not also be in favor of legal ownership of the second.
To clarify my position: I have no problems with strict restrictions on firearms, particularly those with no hunting use, but since everyone else "has one" I want one too, and will purchase a firearm shortly (within a month, most likely). In general, I think restricting or strictly enforcing the access to firearms is a good thing, but I realize it's not a terribly likely scenario in the US, which isn't historically ready for it yet.
To your bolded point. It has been established that the meaning of Arms in the "2nd" refers to weapons that are not designed specifically for the military.
To the rest of your points that is why we have SCOTUS to rule of these finer points of disagreement regarding State laws on the regulation of citizen weaponry.
To your bolded point. It has been established that the meaning of Arms in the "2nd" refers to weapons that are not designed specifically for the military.
To the rest of your points that is why we have SCOTUS to rule of these finer points of disagreement regarding State laws on the regulation of citizen weaponry.
If that's the case (bolded), wouldn't a ban on say, AK based rifles and Mosin Nagants etc (just to pick a couple), be constitutional? They were both, like many others, originally designed purely as a military weapon.
Again, not picking a fight here, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue.
Not to derail the thread, but it was a Moderator who asked the question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85
It's written vaguely, in my opinion, and from what I can see, doesn't state anything about a ban on further restriction and legislation.
Did you miss the point that says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you consider it an inclusive description, not an exclusive, it is certainly not vague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85
My point is this: Do people who think the government can't restrict small arms (pistols and rifles) also believe that any and all citizen who can procure it has the legal right to ownership of Ground to air missiles and other heavy artillery? Because I don't see how one can fight for the rights of one type of arms, based on the second amendment, but not also be in favor of legal ownership of the second.
Yes actually I do think that if you can afford it there should be no restriction on the type of arms and munitions that one can obtain (beyond weapons that have international restrictions on ownership such as NBC). You want an M1 Abrams fully loaded with a cocktail of APFSDS and HEAT? No problem that'll be $50M we'll throw in the rounds at a discount.
There is historical precedent too, The constitution charges Congress with issuing "Letters of Marque" these authorize privateers to attack and capture enemy vessels. How could a privateer attack and capture enemy vessels without some pretty serious artillery? Even at the time of the constitution's creation there were cannon from 2 pound to 50 pound, and mortars from 4.4 inch to 13 inches. By congress supplying a letter of marque to a privateer, then it is expected that these weapons were in the hands of the private citizen, not just the military, or the reality would have been Congress would issue "letters of suicide", since all vessels carried various weights of cannon for self defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85
To clarify my position: I have no problems with strict restrictions on firearms, particularly those with no hunting use, but since everyone else "has one" I want one too, and will purchase a firearm shortly (within a month, most likely). In general, I think restricting or strictly enforcing the access to firearms is a good thing, but I realize it's not a terribly likely scenario in the US, which isn't historically ready for it yet.
Where in the 2nd does it state the purpose of the right to keep and bear? Is there a clause that says it's only for hunting? At the end of the day is a 30-06 hunting rifle any less deadly than an M1 Garand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad
To your bolded point. It has been established that the meaning of Arms in the "2nd" refers to weapons that are not designed specifically for the military.
Could you give me a citation on this? I can go out today and buy an M67 fragmentation grenade, after paying a DD tax, could you explain that given that an M67 grenade is specifically a weapon designed for the military?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
