Second Amendment Question

[Jagger69]

Pertinent to the ongoing debate that we have been having regarding gun control, I'd like to ask a general question for discussion. Would the following law violate the second amendment?

It is unlawful for:

Any convicted felon to have in his or her possession any firearm or to carry a concealed weapon unless his civil rights have been restored.

The following persons to own, possess or use any firearm - drug addicts, alcoholics, mental incompetents, and vagrants.

For persons to have in their care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition if the person has been issued a final injunction that is currently in force and effect, restraining that person from committing acts of domestic violence.

To sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.

Any dealer to sell or transfer any firearm, pistol, Springfield rifle or other repeating rifle to a minor.

A minor less than 18 years of age to possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.

Additionally:

No licensed gun dealer, manufacturer or importer shall sell or deliver any firearm to another person until he has obtained a completed form from the potential buyer or transferee and received approval from the Department of Law Enforcement by means of a toll-free telephone call.

The Department of Law Enforcement shall destroy records of approval and non-approval within 48 hours after its response.

Exempt from the instant check are licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, collectors, persons with a concealed carrying license, law enforcement, correctional and correctional probation officers.

Excluding weekends and legal holidays, there is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun from a retail establishment. Exempt from the waiting period are concealed weapons permit holders and those trading in another handgun.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Absolutely not. The issue isn't whether some stricter measures need to be looked at...even I'm starting to think private sales should be tightened up a bit...but by the private citizen. If the government is so concerned with that portion of gun sales, why not give the people a national data base, so we can be sure we're not selling to felons. Gun shops charge a fee for that, why should we pay...the government should. But banning, restricting guns and capacity, and mandatory registration, that's not for safety, that's the preparations of a leader getting ready to disarm a lawful populace. No gun laws work...what works is taking care of the people that commit the crimes, so they can't do it again....sometimes that might mean the death penalty. I know you and I have talked about that, it's a different subject, but that aside, if a guy gets caught robbing a store with a gun, and it's a first offense, to bad, don't plea bargain it down, throw the book at him, and when he gets out, if he does it ONE MORE TIME, life with no chance for parole...unless he's murdered, then that's where you and I disagree. There are far to many solutions to this problem, to jump on the one that deprives law abiding citizens their right to collect, and enjoy the shooting hobbies, and sports they enjoy, not to mention the basic tenants of the Amendment itself.

That;'s how I see it anyway.

 

[Mayhem]

If you are about to tell us that the NRA has objections to what you posted, you make an extremely valid point. Other than the three day waiting period, I don't see anything wrong with it (and I'm not all that emotional about the waiting period. I object to it, but if it came with surety that no other impositions will be made, I'd swallow it).

I don't think that you can completely condemn the NRA for a bastion-like mentality. They've been under attack for a long time, and appeasement won't work. If you don't believe me, ask the people fighting against the NRA.

 

[Johan]

But banning, restricting guns and capacity, and mandatory registration, that's not for safety, that's the preparations of a leader getting ready to disarm a lawful populace.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Sorry, can't help it.

enjoy the shooting hobbies, and sports they enjoy, not to mention the basic tenants of the Amendment itself.

If it's for hunting, what you need is a rifle.
If it's for the fun, what yu need is an air soft
if it for protection, what you need is a hand gun
If it's to overthrow a tyran, what you need is a bazooka

But whatever you wanna do, you don't need a M615 (or you need much more than a M-15).

 

[Sam Fisher]

Here in Colorado there is no waiting, except for the CBI to run a background check on you. You go to a gun shop.. take the gun you want up to the counter, fill out a paper showing ID,and answering about 12 questions on the paper. The person at the counter sends the info via FAX to the CBI, they run a background check, and if they aren't swamped, it typically takes 20 minutes. When the OK comes back, you pay the cost of the gun and out the door you go with your new firearm.

You see, law abiding gun purchasers follow those rules/laws. They've got nothing to hide. It's the criminal that knows he is going to get denied if he tries to buy a gun from a store. Plus, I think it is against the law to try to purchase one knowing you are a felon. So, that means they will be arrested and or fined.

 

[Sam Fisher]

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2: Sorry, can't help it.

That's because you are an idiot.

If it's for hunting, what you need is a rifle.

You don't know wtf you are talking about.

If it's for the fun, what yu need is an air soft.

You go right ahead. I'll continue using my firearms.

if it for protection, what you need is a hand gun.

Handguns are not the best choice for self/home defense. Shotguns are much better.

If it's to overthrow a tyran, what you need is a bazooka.

Again, you don't know wtf you are talking about

But whatever you wanna do, you don't need a M615 (or you need much more than a M-15).

Why don't you STFU? You seriously do not know jack-shit about firearms and their uses.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Sorry, can't help it.

If it's for hunting, what you need is a rifle.
If it's for the fun, what yu need is an air soft
if it for protection, what you need is a hand gun
If it's to overthrow a tyran, what you need is a bazooka

But whatever you wanna do, you don't need a M615 (or you need much more than a M-15).

See, that's what you and your ilk doesn't seem to get. It's not a Bill Of "Needs"..it's a Bill Of "RIGHTS"!

 

[Johan]

See, that's what you and your ilk doesn't seem to get. It's not a Bill Of "Needs"..it's a Bill Of "RIGHTS"!

The 2nd amendment is about "the right ot bear arms".

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments

An RPG would fit this definition. Should people be allowed to bear RPGs ?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The 2nd amendment is about "the right ot bear arms".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments

An RPG would fit this definition. Should people be allowed to bear RPGs ?

Yes. And grenade launchers...and any weapon equivalent to what the government was, and would use against us. Notice I say government,and not OUR government. That's because our government will send soldiers to fight overseas, then bring in foreign peace keepers from the UN.

 

[twat36975248664224]

I support people having guns for hunting and for protection. As long as those guns aren't assault weapons if you are hunting and need one you suck at hunting give it up and if you need it for protection you must of pissed off a lot of people to need one.

 

[Mayhem]

I support people having guns for hunting and for protection. As long as those guns aren't assault weapons if you are hunting and need one you suck at hunting give it up and if you need it for protection you must of pissed off a lot of people to need one.

Well, there ya go. You just made Sam's argument for him.

 

[Jagger69]

We're getting off-topic, people. I'm asking everyone to answer the question I posed in the OP. There are plenty of other threads that have devolved into a finger-pointing session. I'd like to stick to the topic in this one.

Just for review, here's how the second amendment reads:

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.

Definiton of "infringe" according to Webster:

To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Thanks!

 

[xfire]

Pertinent to the ongoing debate that we have been having regarding gun control, I'd like to ask a general question for discussion. Would the following law violate the second amendment?

I was pondering a similar sentiment the other day. Considering the wording of the 2nd Amendment, all of those conditions are constitutional. "Well Regulated" is the sword the NRA falls on.

 

[Johan]

We're getting off-topic, people. I'm asking everyone to answer the question I posed in the OP. There are plenty of other threads that have devolved into a finger-pointing session. I'd like to stick to the topic in this one.

Just for review, here's how the second amendment reads: 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.



Definiton of "infringe" according to Webster: To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another



Thanks!

Definition of a "well regulated militia" ?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

We're getting off-topic, people. I'm asking everyone to answer the question I posed in the OP. There are plenty of other threads that have devolved into a finger-pointing session. I'd like to stick to the topic in this one.

Just for review, here's how the second amendment reads:



Definiton of "infringe" according to Webster:



Thanks!

Okay, well as I SEE IT. That militia IS THE PEOPLE. Some argue that it's the National Guard....but aren't they controlled, and regulated by the same Government we would want to be secure from. The fact is, you can't count on the fact that these service men will say, wait a minute, our leaders are wrong, we must do what's right, and disobey them. We also have to look at the fact that, many Nat. Guard units have been sent over seas....instead of remaining here to protecting us, and our boarders. The law abiding do not infringe upon others, criminals do, therefore laws only effect the law abiding, therefore the peoples right to own these weapons they seek to outlaw, or restrict, IS infringing on our rights. Not to mention, they're seeking MUCH broader regulations then just an AR15, or an AK47. They want registration of past purchases, so you can be tracked, they want to restrict common pistols, such as 9mm's that may hold 15 rounds. I consider all these things "infringement" upon my rights, mainly because I've done nothing, nor should I be judged guilty, until proven so.

That's how I see it. If that isn't back on topic, please be more specific, I'll do my best.

 

[Johan]

That militia IS THE PEOPLE

Then therte's the "well regulation" of that militia.

In my book a militia is more than a bunch of citizens with guns. A militia has leaders, chiefs. Militians are trained, organised into suads, battalions or whatever...

A militia should be ready to gather itself and be prepared to fight within altogether a few hours.
Tell me, if the US government would turn tyrannical and some troops would march on your town, how long would it takes before you guys would be ready to fight toe to toe against these troops the your ancestors did in Lexington ?

 

[Will E Worm]

Yes, the does violate the Second Amendment.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Yes, the does violate the Second Amendment.

wat?

 

[Jagger69]

Definition of a "well regulated militia" ?

Good question. Consider this commentary:

A Well Regulated Militia?

From and by: Ken kiger@northstate.net

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"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."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Source:

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html

Good discussion. I know this is a hot-button issue but let's try to keep it civil.

 

[Will E Worm]

Then therte's the "well regulation" of that militia.

A Militia is every able bodied male.

The "well regulated militia" clause is separate from the part that says we can have weapons.