Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

I have been recently hammered about the North Carolina incident and its unconstitutional actions. My question how is the Supreme Court able to ignore the second amendment and yet claim legitimacy when they allow unconstitutional gun laws in NYC and Washington D.C.? Either they uphold the whole document or they are themselves derelict in their duty to defend it and are treasonous. It'd funny they won't defend the document directly, but will defend it in areas of elections. Why? D.C. is their home town and yet there they disregard the constitution.
Here are two versions of the Amendment off Wikipedia:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Clearly these gun laws infringe the rights of people to bear arms IMO.

This is opinion only so lets keep it friendly. Please.

I couldn't agree more. I would even go so far as letting felons(especially the non violent) legally own guns. If felons lose their right to bear arms, once the debt to society has been paid, the right is no longer a right but a privilege. If his rights/privilege can be taken away, then so can mine. His right to vote should be restored as well. A hard pill to swallow but the logic cant be beaten. If the felon is violent or convicted of some kind of voter/election fraud then they should be incarcerated for life in order to protect the right of the citizens.

Full disclosure, I've been an NRA life member since 1976. That said, those two states are perfect examples of the ineffectiveness of gun laws if there ever was an example. OTOH, it is Interesting how states that have instituted concealed carry for their citizens have had a decrease in violent crime.

this is gonna be another great one i think.. i am all for everyone to carry a gun, as big as they can carry. that way the thugs will not know who to rob or who not too. makes the playing field more level.
i know there is a city in florida where it is(i believe to be true) mandatory to conceal carry and if i am correct, the crime is very low there.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Here are two versions of the Amendment off Wikipedia:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Clearly these gun laws infringe the rights of people to bear arms IMO.

This is opinion only so lets keep it friendly. Please.

Hi, I am from out of town but have a keen interest in peoples rights.
Now feel free to correct me on anything I say, as I said I am from out of town, an outsider looking in so to speak.
When the above was written I gather arms were meant to mean a shovel, pitchfork, knife and a black powder rifle. So today that would translate to a shovel, pitchfork, knife and maybe a single shot bolt action rifle.
So my interpretation of the above is that every citizen has the right to keep a knife and a basic rifle for personal use, and to be ready when called upon by the state for home security, and when said citizens are organised into a well regulated militia.
So if the average citizen likes to do a bit of hunting or would like to help the state in a time of need, does anyone really need anything more than a knife and a single shot rifle and some ammunition in thier gun cupboard? From a personal point of view I don,t really see the need for hand guns or semi automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public.
Like I said that,s just my two bobs worth and feel free to tell me your thoughts as I am allways interested when a government is trying to curtail a citizens rights.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Hi, I am from out of town but have a keen interest in peoples rights.
Now feel free to correct me on anything I say, as I said I am from out of town, an outsider looking in so to speak.
When the above was written I gather arms were meant to mean a shovel, pitchfork, knife and a black powder rifle. So today that would translate to a shovel, pitchfork, knife and maybe a single shot bolt action rifle.
So my interpretation of the above is that every citizen has the right to keep a knife and a basic rifle for personal use, and to be ready when called upon by the state for home security, and when said citizens are organised into a well regulated militia.
So if the average citizen likes to do a bit of hunting or would like to help the state in a time of need, does anyone really need anything more than a knife and a single shot rifle and some ammunition in thier gun cupboard? From a personal point of view I don,t really see the need for hand guns or semi automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public.
Like I said that,s just my two bobs worth and feel free to tell me your thoughts as I am allways interested when a government is trying to curtail a citizens rights.

i believe if there had been semi autos back then, they would have had them. i think we need to be well armed just in case of what may happen, all the while thinking and hoping it does not happen...a good defense is always a good offense...never let you enemy know everything you have until it is too late for them....

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Hi, I am from out of town but have a keen interest in peoples rights.
Now feel free to correct me on anything I say, as I said I am from out of town, an outsider looking in so to speak.
When the above was written I gather arms were meant to mean a shovel, pitchfork, knife and a black powder rifle. So today that would translate to a shovel, pitchfork, knife and maybe a single shot bolt action rifle.
So my interpretation of the above is that every citizen has the right to keep a knife and a basic rifle for personal use, and to be ready when called upon by the state for home security, and when said citizens are organised into a well regulated militia.
So if the average citizen likes to do a bit of hunting or would like to help the state in a time of need, does anyone really need anything more than a knife and a single shot rifle and some ammunition in thier gun cupboard? From a personal point of view I don,t really see the need for hand guns or semi automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public.
Like I said that,s just my two bobs worth and feel free to tell me your thoughts as I am always interested when a government is trying to curtail a citizens rights.

The Supreme court has ruled in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the right extends to "weapons of common use". Semi-automatic handguns are in common use. So are Semi-auto rifles. Browning BAR and the Springfield M1A being prime examples- more so with the BAR. That's if you want to go with the legal path. (You can also throw in Ruger 10/22's, Marlin Papoose & Model 60's, And Remington 1187s to name a few more)

Browning BAR Safari


There are a lot of people who are good with a single shot/ bolt action rifle. Don't take my next comment as saying they'd be useless. But a bunch of dedicated and trained citizens armed with Surplus/ rebuilt AKs and ARs would be perhaps(generally speaking) a more effective and or useful resistance than those same citizens armed only with single shots and bolt actions.

Trey,

When it comes to legislation, and how far it can go, please remember us poor bastards in the UK; we had our hanguns and self-loading rifles (above 0.22 rimfire) banned

Watch out; it's a slippery slope !

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Originally Posted by Vekta

The Supreme court has ruled in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the right extends to "weapons of common use". Semi-automatic handguns are in common use. So are Semi-auto rifles. Browning BAR and the Springfield M1A being prime examples- more so with the BAR. That's if you want to go with the legal path.

Browning BAR Safari


There are a lot of people who are good with a single shot/ bolt action rifle. Don't take my next comment as saying they'd be useless. But a bunch of dedicated and trained citizens armed with Surplus/ rebuilt AKs and ARs would be perhaps(generally speaking) more a effective and or useful resistance than those same citizens armed only with single shots and bolt actions.

Is this not what the police, national guard, army reserve and the big one the combined armed services are for? The average citizen would just be backup. Unless one of the above or all somehow become the enemy of the state and people! I suppose it has happened in some countries?
By the way that browning safari is a nice looking bit of kit Does it come in single shot?

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Is this not what the police, national guard, army reserve and the big one the combined armed services are for? The average citizen would just be backup. Unless one of the above or all somehow become the enemy of the state and people! I suppose it has happened in some countries?
By the way that browning safari is a nice looking bit of kit Does it come in single shot?

It's very unlikely, and I hate even thinking about it, but it can happen. I don't even wanna type the words.

Sure that's what the Police, Guard and Reserve are for but if it really came down to it there are a lot of American citizens that would not sit and do nothing. I have heard of a few civilian milita groups that do general training. I don't know what kind of training. I didn't ask.



And nope, the BAR doesn't come in single shot. BAR stands for "Browning Automatic Rifle".