Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2011, 06:10 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,608,624 times
Reputation: 23293

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
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.


No I don't take it as a fight. That's for the PC forum.

Well, this particular area that you are focusing on is really the line between the State's power to regulate vs the constitutionality of those regulations.

I understand the hairs your trying to split. However it can be said that all weapons were originally designed for a military purpose. Including Sabers, hatchets, etc...

I could use hand grenade for fishing for maximum efficiency.

This is one of those super grey areas that really depends on your viewpoint. Again thank goodness we have the best justice system (Yes I know not perfect) and rule of law in use any where in the world currently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2011, 06:13 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,859,282 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming View Post
I'll work for constitutional carry. Working for government permission concedes that the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than a privilege to be granted or withheld by those in power.

Does that mean that there won't be "national reciprocity"? If it does just remember that freedom isn't free.
Y'all have a good model for the state to nullify via what was done next door in Montana. It would be great if every single state put Constitutional Carry and well as the right to hunt, within their individual state constitutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2011, 06:32 PM
 
10,924 posts, read 21,934,851 times
Reputation: 10567
U.S. House of Representatives Adopts Right-to-Carry Reciprocity—All Anti-Gun Amendments defeated

NRA-ILA :: U.S. House of Representatives Adopts Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 05:43 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,608,624 times
Reputation: 23293
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHDave View Post
U.S. House of Representatives Adopts Right-to-Carry Reciprocity—All Anti-Gun Amendments defeated

NRA-ILA :: U.S. House of Representatives Adopts Right-to-Carry Reciprocity
On to the Senate.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,396,671 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Yeah exactly. That is what makes the bill potentially useless. You will get a state like California that will then pass a bill saying "yeah, OK, umm, but lets then make it OK only on Tuesday's and when the moon is full". Something restrictive.
My permit is currently good for 37 states anyways.

Edit: and I just read it will not force states and munincipalities that do not have currrent laws to allow carry (i.e. Illinios, New York City) to allow carry. You will will not be able to legaly defend yourself in those states with an out of state license.


It wont force ststes that forbid concealed carry no, but anyplace that allows it at all, & NYC does, will have to recognize other jurisdictions permits.

If the folks in CA would be ok with a permit system that only let them carry on Tuesday with a full moon then thats how it would be, but I doubt that would fly or be found Constitutional.

Its far from useless & simply makes states respect the rights & authority of other states. We shouldn't need a permit at all, but if we do, and we do, then it should be recognized everyplace that allows carry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,396,671 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
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.
Is states unequivically that "The right of the people to KEEP & BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Nothing vague & obviously forbids further restriction & legislation since any restriction constitutes infringement.
Infringement doesn't only mean ban entirely, it means interfere with.

The militia clause, which I bet they now wish theyd left out, can be viewed if you try hard, but its simply an example of a compelling reason for the right to remain un infringed, its not exclusionary & the right counts for anybody careing to carry a gun. Note that "Bear" in this contect means carry about, not just own. In other words they wanted you to be able to carry where, when, why & what you wanted without concern for silly paranoid people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 12:17 PM
 
4,500 posts, read 12,310,938 times
Reputation: 2901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Is states unequivically that "The right of the people to KEEP & BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Nothing vague & obviously forbids further restriction & legislation since any restriction constitutes infringement.
Infringement doesn't only mean ban entirely, it means interfere with.

The militia clause, which I bet they now wish theyd left out, can be viewed if you try hard, but its simply an example of a compelling reason for the right to remain un infringed, its not exclusionary & the right counts for anybody careing to carry a gun. Note that "Bear" in this contect means carry about, not just own. In other words they wanted you to be able to carry where, when, why & what you wanted without concern for silly paranoid people.
I don't think there's room for interpretation of the word infringe, it's more the word "arms", which, in my opinion is vague, and has room for interpretation. One could for instance argue that those who write the amendment couldn't foresee the massive advances man has made when it comes arms, and that the implementation of such arms must be judged by those who live today, not decades ago.

And coming from a country that's changed it's constitution to keep up with the times, I don't understand the apprehension some have against making changes to one.

PS. If the forum moderator thinks this issue is off topic, please delete my post, I'm just a poster like anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 12:42 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,608,624 times
Reputation: 23293
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
I don't think there's room for interpretation of the word infringe, it's more the word "arms", which, in my opinion is vague, and has room for interpretation. One could for instance argue that those who write the amendment couldn't foresee the massive advances man has made when it comes arms, and that the implementation of such arms must be judged by those who live today, not decades ago.

And coming from a country that's changed it's constitution to keep up with the times, I don't understand the apprehension some have against making changes to one.

PS. If the forum moderator thinks this issue is off topic, please delete my post, I'm just a poster like anyone else.
SCOTUS opinion on the verbiage of the 2nd is readily available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 03:49 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,396,671 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
I don't think there's room for interpretation of the word infringe, it's more the word "arms", which, in my opinion is vague, and has room for interpretation. One could for instance argue that those who write the amendment couldn't foresee the massive advances man has made when it comes arms, and that the implementation of such arms must be judged by those who live today, not decades ago.

And coming from a country that's changed it's constitution to keep up with the times, I don't understand the apprehension some have against making changes to one.

PS. If the forum moderator thinks this issue is off topic, please delete my post, I'm just a poster like anyone else.

The word arms, then & now usually refers to hand held weaponry and I think its fairly reasonable to assume its what they meant. If its vague thats because, then as now, most people realized that todays state of the art weapons are tomorrows outdated antiques. At the time a muzzle loader was state of the art military weaponry, an assault weapon if you will. That is exactly what they wanted us to have free acess to, modern military arms. Just as they didn't say "you guys can have crossbows but not Brown Besses" Today its wrong to say "you guys can have hunting guns but not M16s" I should note that I collect & restore old lever actions & thats pretty much what I shoot. I have no desire for a military type rifle, but there is no doubt that those should be available. Even if the militia clause, which is the most common thing used to put down the 2nd, was the only reason for the preservation of it, they still MUST be available if we are to be able to muster an effective civilian force. The militias of the day were armed with guns equal & sometimes better than the regular army, as they need to be if they hope to effectively defend the country, state, town or family from organized attack.

On another note, while we have changed the constitution, we have never watered down any other civil right, we have added amendments yes, but not in any other instance have we allowed ANY state to outright ban a right inumerated in it, nor have we allowed ANY state to so regulate a right that a person needs a permit to excercise it nor a backround check etc. Many folks say its like yelling "FIRE" in a theater. But its not. Only regarding guns do you need to prove anything first, before you commit a crime or abuse, only regarding guns can you be charged a felony for exercising a right without having gotten "permission" even if nobody was harmed. You can bring your mouth into a theater, even though its very easy for you to cause mayhem with it. If while in the theater you said "fire" in a conversation nobody would want you locked up because you did nothing wrong. Conversly you cannot carry a gun with no permit, and if you do so without causeing harm to a soul but someone sees it you are charged with a felony in most states, for harming no one.

It also bears noteing that we have never changed the 2nd amendment & the anti gun lobby never even tries to. Instead they ignore it, make like its not there & our Legislature allows it. The fact is that almost any gun law should require a constitutional amendment, because almost all of them infringe upon it. The only one I can think of that helps us is the firearm owners protection act witch provides that we can transport a gun through a communist state or municipality as long as we can legally posess it where we started & where we are headed. But we wouldn't need that one if the constitution was actually a limitation to legislation in regards to the 2nd amendment like it is to all the rest.

Can you imagine needing a permit to write? to pray in the faith of your choice? To go where you please? Nah, the truth of the matter is that 99% of current gun laws are unconstitutional.

This bill, while also unconstitutional, since states with no permit requirement are being penalized for respecting the constitution, is one small step in the right direction. Imagine needing a Christian permit to believe in Jesus & then imagine needing one in every state & imagine being locked up if you went to church in a state that didn't recognize your "Church Permit" Sounds absurd eh? But whats the difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2011, 04:01 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,608,624 times
Reputation: 23293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
The word arms, then & now usually refers to hand held weaponry and I think its fairly reasonable to assume its what they meant. If its vague thats because, then as now, most people realized that todays state of the art weapons are tomorrows outdated antiques. At the time a muzzle loader was state of the art military weaponry, an assault weapon if you will. That is exactly what they wanted us to have free acess to, modern military arms. Just as they didn't say "you guys can have crossbows but not Brown Besses" Today its wrong to say "you guys can have hunting guns but not M16s" I should note that I collect & restore old lever actions & thats pretty much what I shoot. I have no desire for a military type rifle, but there is no doubt that those should be available. Even if the militia clause, which is the most common thing used to put down the 2nd, was the only reason for the preservation of it, they still MUST be available if we are to be able to muster an effective civilian force. The militias of the day were armed with guns equal & sometimes better than the regular army, as they need to be if they hope to effectively defend the country, state, town or family from organized attack.

On another note, while we have changed the constitution, we have never watered down any other civil right, we have added amendments yes, but not in any other instance have we allowed ANY state to outright ban a right inumerated in it, nor have we allowed ANY state to so regulate a right that a person needs a permit to excercise it nor a backround check etc. Many folks say its like yelling "FIRE" in a theater. But its not. Only regarding guns do you need to prove anything first, before you commit a crime or abuse, only regarding guns can you be charged a felony for exercising a right without having gotten "permission" even if nobody was harmed. You can bring your mouth into a theater, even though its very easy for you to cause mayhem with it. If while in the theater you said "fire" in a conversation nobody would want you locked up because you did nothing wrong. Conversly you cannot carry a gun with no permit, and if you do so without causeing harm to a soul but someone sees it you are charged with a felony in most states, for harming no one.

It also bears noteing that we have never changed the 2nd amendment & the anti gun lobby never even tries to. Instead they ignore it, make like its not there & our Legislature allows it. The fact is that almost any gun law should require a constitutional amendment, because almost all of them infringe upon it. The only one I can think of that helps us is the firearm owners protection act witch provides that we can transport a gun through a communist state or municipality as long as we can legally posess it where we started & where we are headed. But we wouldn't need that one if the constitution was actually a limitation to legislation in regards to the 2nd amendment like it is to all the rest.

Can you imagine needing a permit to write? to pray in the faith of your choice? To go where you please? Nah, the truth of the matter is that 99% of current gun laws are unconstitutional.

This bill, while also unconstitutional, since states with no permit requirement are being penalized for respecting the constitution, is one small step in the right direction. Imagine needing a Christian permit to believe in Jesus & then imagine needing one in every state & imagine being locked up if you went to church in a state that didn't recognize your "Church Permit" Sounds absurd eh? But whats the difference?
I would say in the history of mankind Religious conviction has been the biggest factor in the whole sale slaughter of humans. I think we need to regulate it.

Sarcasm of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:43 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top