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 battle goes on. The gun-rights-haters have lately taken to referring to past court cases rather than to the fundamental laws, especially the 2nd amendment itself and recet cases that address it directly. Who can blame them, when the law so clearly goes against what their agenda demands?
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns
Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.
What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
The battle goes on. The gun-rights-haters have lately taken to referring to past court cases rather than to the fundamental laws, especially the 2nd amendment itself and recet cases that address it directly. Who can blame them, when the law so clearly goes against what their agenda demands?
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns
You still can buy a handgun.........all it did was uphold a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.
All dumb gun owners better run and hide in their caves and wait for the second coming.
You still can buy a handgun.........all it did was uphold a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.
In other words, people's right to own a hangun, was restricted by the government.
^Which has had no bearing since America was trying to break off from British rule. It's been perverted since its inception for people's own selfish reasonings.
The battle goes on. The gun-rights-haters have lately taken to referring to past court cases rather than to the fundamental laws, especially the 2nd amendment itself and recet cases that address it directly. Who can blame them, when the law so clearly goes against what their agenda demands?
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns
Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.
What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
So much for the 10th Amendment, eh!
If states are allowed to interpret the Constitution it can go this way too
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
What does a "well regulated militia" become in 'modern language'?
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is not a 10th Amendment issue. This is a right of the people which is not at the discretion of the Federal or State governments.
As to an earlier statement about this "having no bearing" as America was trying to break off from British Rule. The 2nd Amendment was passed AFTER we had won the Revolutionary War.
If you read the Consitution you will find "militia" mentioned several times. Feel free to interpret it as best you can. But, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" which they saw as necessary to include.
If only the militia was to be armed, then no mention "of the people" would be necessary...
^Which has had no bearing since America was trying to break off from British rule. It's been perverted since its inception for people's own selfish reasonings.
It's an Amendment to the United States Constitution.
No other Amendment has ever been subject to the level of restriction and "interpretation" as the 2nd.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is not a 10th Amendment issue. This is a right of the people which is not at the discretion of the Federal or State governments.
As to an earlier statement about this "having no bearing" as America was trying to break off from British Rule. The 2nd Amendment was passed AFTER we had won the Revolutionary War.
If you read the Consitution you will find "militia" mentioned several times. Feel free to interpret it as best you can. But, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" which they saw as necessary to include.
If only the militia was to be armed, then no mention "of the people" would be necessary...
It seems a lot of the same people who advocate for the 10th Amendment advocate for the 2nd Amendment. Personally I think NJ has gone too far but you can't have it both ways
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.
