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.
The issue is the principle of civil disobedience which requires one to ignore an unjust law to enact change.
Since you believe in blind adherence to all laws, good or bad, which one of these former misguided laws would you have supported? Fugitive Slave Act? Jim Crow laws? Eighteenth Amendment?
And I said that where? Nice try (not really), no cigar (not even bubble gum).
There's a huge difference between civil disobedience and committing felonies or even most misdemeanors. But perhaps you weren't around, or cognizant, in the 50s and 60s like I was.
And I said that where? Nice try (not really), no cigar (not even bubble gum).
There's a huge difference between civil disobedience and committing felonies or even most misdemeanors. But perhaps you weren't around, or cognizant, in the 50s and 60s like I was.
Civil disobedience by definition involves the commission of felonies and misdemeanors.
There is no distinction - it is breaking a law to highlight the unjustness of such a law.
The Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms does not extend to the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, a federal appeals court in Denver has ruled.
I think the right to conceal carry or open carry or whatever is to be decided on state by state basis.
The right to own guns, any guns, on your own property is a right that neither the states or the federal government can take away.
I agree. Each State needs to make their own laws concerning open carry and concealed carry. In Alaska, for example, anyone can open carry or concealed carry without a permit. Other States may require a permit and/or training before issuing a concealed carry permit.
The Second Amendment does not specify how a firearm may be carried, only that carrying a firearm is an individual right that cannot be infringed.
I agree. Each State needs to make their own laws concerning open carry and concealed carry. In Alaska, for example, anyone can open carry or concealed carry without a permit. Other States may require a permit and/or training before issuing a concealed carry permit.
The Second Amendment does not specify how a firearm may be carried, only that carrying a firearm is an individual right that cannot be infringed.
great, since the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed upon, lets get rid of all 25000 unconstitutional gun laws at both the state and federal levels.
great, since the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed upon, lets get rid of all 25000 unconstitutional gun laws at both the state and federal levels.
We already did that in Alaska. Additionally, any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Alaska, with the intent to be used only in Alaska, are exempt from all federal law.
We already did that in Alaska. Additionally, any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Alaska, with the intent to be used only in Alaska, are exempt from all federal law.
The Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to bear arms does not extend to the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, a federal appeals court in Denver has ruled.
I thought all this was reasonably clear. The gun guys won the battle but lost the war at the USSC.
The government cannot ban the carriage of arms...but they can regulate it. That is particularly telling as it says "make no law" is not operative.
And the funny thing is almost everyone agrees. Ask the NRA whether a law preventing the bearing of arms by the mentally ill is reasonable. So even the NRA agrees that the government can regulate that which the Constitution says it cannot.
I thought all this was reasonably clear. The gun guys won the battle but lost the war at the USSC.
The government cannot ban the carriage of arms...but they can regulate it. That is particularly telling as it says "make no law" is not operative.
And the funny thing is almost everyone agrees. Ask the NRA whether a law preventing the bearing of arms by the mentally ill is reasonable. So even the NRA agrees that the government can regulate that which the Constitution says it cannot.
I agree that the NRA is wrong. the Constitution is very clear. even if the people say that regulated means having laws against it, then it only effects the militia and not the people, as their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
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.
