TexasCHLforum.com

I don't consider license requirements as infringements as long as the license is shall issue and available to any sane, adult LAC.

Remember, none of the BOR is absolute. All have limitations that are deemed to be "reasonable". Rights can conflict with each other and the courts have to draw lines. Think of parades, noise ordinances, etc.

I would not consider suitcase nukes, if they exist, to be 2A type weapons. Banning the private possession of them is not an infringement IMO.

There is a difference between an "Originalist" reading of the BOR and a "literal" reading, IMO. I favor the Originalist philosophy myself.

Some good points, Frankie.

It seems to me that SCOTUS has not been consistent in defining what reasonable restrictions are with respect to all of the BOR.

Freedom of the press is almost inviolate. The media can pretty much do as they please.

Seems to me that regarding defendants rights, they go to extreme lengths to protect the accused to the point of stifling law enforcement and turning criminals loose on technicalities, but when it comes to the 2A, pretty much anything goes.

Anygun

anygunanywhere wrote:Some good points, Frankie.

It seems to me that SCOTUS has not been consistent in defining what reasonable restrictions are with respect to all of the BOR.

Freedom of the press is almost inviolate. The media can pretty much do as they please.

Seems to me that regarding defendants rights, they go to extreme lengths to protect the accused to the point of stifling law enforcement and turning criminals loose on technicalities, but when it comes to the 2A, pretty much anything goes.

Anygun

Though they haven't ruled on the 2A all that much.

Note also how freedom of the press seems to be inviolate, but freedom of speech (that'd be for you and me) has been under assault in recent years. Think speech codes, so-called campaign finance "reform", so-called "hate crimes" laws, etc.

Some rights certainly seem to be more favored than others. And I agree with very little of it.

llwatson wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...

And they can get past the kids who will be fighting over who gets what.

Personally, I'm good with the tank. Does that come in an automatic? Factory air? Leather seats?

Yes, let me put you in touch with my Russian counterpart Yuri...Whatever you do, don't stare at the thing on his neck...He's a bit sensitive about that...

If you want Corinthian leather, thats going to cost ya extra though...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I don't consider license requirements as infringements as long as the license is shall issue and available to any sane, adult LAC.

Remember, none of the BOR is absolute. All have limitations that are deemed to be "reasonable". Rights can conflict with each other and the courts have to draw lines. Think of parades, noise ordinances, etc.

I would not consider suitcase nukes, if they exist, to be 2A type weapons. Banning the private possession of them is not an infringement IMO.

There is a difference between an "Originalist" reading of the BOR and a "literal" reading, IMO. I favor the Originalist philosophy myself.

I believe I'll start disagreements tomorrow with you on this...Point by point...Don't worry, it'll be constructive, not personal in any way...

I just got to hit the pit now...

Well, I voted with the "my cold dead hands" part, but I agree that my views are not properly shown.

I disagree with any type of restriction. I disagree that rights are not absolute. Just because we have come to accept that there are reasonable restrictions doesn't mean it is correct. I also see the Second Amendment as written quite differently from the First, making it much more absolute. Look at the very wording. The First says "Congress shall make no laws". This implies that the states certainly could make laws. It also implies court rulings could go against the rights, and the founders certainly had a basis for understanding case law at the time. The Second says "Shall not be infringed". This is a much stronger and more absolute wording. It includes by any branch of government (and yes, I do not believe in the concept of incorporation as being required when the wording is so clear).

Note that the Fourth has some weaseling in it by the use of the word "unreasonable". There is no such weaseling in the Second. Again, it is absolute.

So, I see no constitutional way to require any licensing or place any restrictions on a person's right to be armed. The only place there might be a restriction is in jail, since the 13th clearly makes a difference for actual prisoners (and that one is debatable since it came 100 years later - I do feel that this is one of the points that the founders figured would not need to be mentioned due to common sense though).

So, even if I did feel that guns were evil or helped cause crime (which I don't), I do not see a Constitutional way to do anything about it. I think this is the way some of the legal scholars are starting to feel - guns are bad but are protected anyway. The honest ones are admitting to the conundrum.

Stephan,

You make some good points. The problem is that I don't think any of us would want to live in the "shoot 'em up" society that could evolve if there were no restrictions (infringements) whatsoever.

Background checks, shall issue licensing, etc. impose little burden on LAC's, while making it more difficult and costly for BG's to get and carry guns. Note, I am not saying that these things make it difficult for BG's to get guns, just more difficult than it would be if they could just walk into a store and buy them like we can.

The principle of limiting rights for criminals and the mentally unsound is well-established in the law.

And if we could ever be characterized as advocating "guns for drug addicts", "guns for the insane", or "guns for violent felons", we and our cause would be quickly relegated to the dustbin of politics in this country, and the RKBA would be a dead letter.

I can't honestly pick any of them.
The U.S. Constitution was written for EVERYBODY!!!
Unless you have done something which plainly calls for a specific denial of your 2A rights, you should have them.
A person with a mental condition who has proven to be violent or dangerous should not have a firearm. However, a self sufficient individual who can make sound decisions for themselves, who also happens to be classified as "retarded", should still have the God given right to defend themselves from attack.

I have a good friend who's passion is working on old trucks and tractors. A long time ago, he was called to work on a truck out in the middle of a field for a guy that he knew fairly well. So he gets out there and starts working. Then the Sheriff pulls up and announces that this truck was stolen. My friend was arrested and thrown in prison for about 5 years IIRC. He is now considered a felon because he was charged as an accomplice to this theft, for simply being at the scene working on the truck.
Now, he cannot own, carry, or even be around a firearm for the rest of his life. He is being denied the right to defend himself with a firearm for a stupid event that occurred back when he was young.

Does that sound right to you?

My answer would have to be:
Any man, woman, and responsible child, may excersize their God-given right to self preservation. They should be allowed to posses weaponry equal to an infantryman of the Government's military.
A properly leveled playing field keeps all playing nice.

And don't harp on me for the child thing. We all have heard the stories about our grandparents running out into the woods with a loaded gun at the age [abbreviated profanity deleted] 10 to get dinner. Kids can be responsible, but that takes good parenting too.

I voted for the tank option. Not because I want a tank, but because it's closest to the 2nd Amendment and the underlying fundamental human right that underlies it.

I'll let L. Neil Smith state my preference:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

KBCraig wrote:Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

What a GREAT statement that says ALOT!

KBCraig wrote:I'll let L. Neil Smith state my preference:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

I'd forgotten about that line; I'll have to use it next time my wife chews me out after a trip to the gun shop. :)

KBCraig wrote: I'll let L. Neil Smith state my preference:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

So you have no problem with your daughter getting on an airplane where most of the other passengers are secretly members of Al Qaeda (who were born here and are US citizens) and who are carrying H&K MP-5's, right?

Sure, most of the other passengers are armed to the teeth as well. And if the Al Qaeda folks tried any funny business, the other passengers, armed citizens for the most part, would make quick work of them.

So that would be OK with you, right?

How about if your daughter and granddaughter were aboard?

Do you think it wouldn't cross Al Qaeda's mind to run ops like that if anyone could carry any gun anywhere?

If so, why would you think that?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I'll let L. Neil Smith state my preference:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

So you have no problem with your daughter getting on an airplane where most of the other passengers are secretly members of Al Qaeda (who were born here and are US citizens) and who are carrying H&K MP-5's, right?

Sure, most of the other passengers are armed to the teeth as well. And if the Al Qaeda folks tried any funny business, the other passengers, armed citizens for the most part, would make quick work of them.

So that would be OK with you, right?

How about if your daughter and granddaughter were aboard?

Do you think it wouldn't cross Al Qaeda's mind to run ops like that if anyone could carry any gun anywhere?

If so, why would you think that?

I have a problem with liberals giving speeches, however there are things we live with in the name of freedom.

Liberty wrote: I have a problem with liberals giving speeches, however there are things we live with in the name of freedom.

1) Don't you believe in free speech? Or do you just want to hear from those with whom you agree?

2) Why not simply address the concerns I raised instead of attacking my right to raise them?

3) Do you think that if anyone could carry any gun any where and at any time, that Al Qaeda wouldn't attempt ops like that, or worse? If so, why not?

And that's just one of many disasterous scenarios I can come up with that could be expected to occur from time to time if we had a completely "free" system.

If you are comfortable living with the consequences of such a system, I would be curious to know why.

And who knows, maybe I have a problem with people making broad, feel good, catagorical statements without thinking through some of the consequences.

A knife! He's got a knife!
Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives!

- Jim