Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BobT

Gun control

47 posts in this topic

For an interesting read check out Outdoor Life's HSOforum and click the link to the story titled, "Are Gun Owners the 2nd Amendment's Worst Enemy?"

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article and dead on right...

Everyone needs to read that. The part of the bill they quote in the article is HR1022.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is a bunch of fecal matter. Typical of gun nuts to side against the constitution and purport rights that aren't there. You might find the following illustrative as it is the decision of the Supreme Court and now is the law of the land. The part I've highlighted is conviently ignored by the gun nuts.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed

the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(B) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional

muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily

and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy

his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a

dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,

joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,

SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dink--

Let me guess. Is it a fascist article?? Written by a fascist??

Is that why you do not like it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nice of you to add your useless opinion dumpafish. Your buddy who wrote the article is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and probably a fascist, so what. Sometimes even traitors can write something intellegent like Justice Scalia did in the court opinion cited above. He maybe a total scum bag deserving to swing from the end of a short rope but even he comes up with some decent opinions once and awhile.

So let me get this straight

I am dumb and have a useless opinion.

The writer is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and fascist.

Justice Scalia is a traitor and deserves to be hung.

Is this right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

If you are that far out of your mind ---- please tell me where you hunt so that I can stay as far away as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

If you are that far out of your mind ---- please tell me where you hunt so that I can stay as far away as possible.

Read some of his past posts. This will give you the answer to your above question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

Chapter three.

William Aires new book, "Coffee talk with the Senator"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

If you are that far out of your mind ---- please tell me where you hunt so that I can stay as far away as possible.

What the H are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the author has the wrong premise as to the differing opinions of us gun owners. I don’t see the difference as being how the gun is used, hunter vs. plinker, vs. home protectionist. I think it has more to do with environmental factors such as population, income and education of where you reside. If you live in a small outstate community then gun control is a non issue, however, if you live in a large metropolitan area, guns, handguns in particular, are an issue. That’s not to say that small communities don’t have there share of problems, it’s just the frequency of the problems. Living in a large metro area like NY, Chicago, LA, Wash DC etc… gun violence is an everyday occurrence. Hunter or sport shooters in those areas are much more likely to be in favor of some gun control where the smaller community hunter or sport shooters see no need for control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point Kidd but then would it also be appropriate for cities and other metropolitan areas to enact laws to govern their own cities?

Of course, my guess is that it is already illegal in most to discharge a firearm or perhaps even have one uncased and/or loaded. This is probably true for most cities from the largest to the smallest. I could check the city laws in Osakis and I bet it's in there.

With that said, would it not beg the question to enforce the laws we already have? Why hold rural small communities to the same restrictions as those in cities when the problem is not a rural problem?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: DinkADunk
So nice of you to add your useless opinion dumpafish. Your buddy who wrote the article is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and probably a fascist, so what. Sometimes even traitors can write something intellegent like Justice Scalia did in the court opinion cited above. He maybe a total scum bag deserving to swing from the end of a short rope but even he comes up with some decent opinions once and awhile.

So let me get this straight

I am dumb and have a useless opinion.

The writer is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and fascist.

Justice Scalia is a traitor and deserves to be hung.

Is this right??

i propose a drinking game. everytime Dinkadunk states the word fascists or anything related to, one shot of tequilla.

his posts give weight to the issue of removing computers from inmates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: tealitup
What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

If you are that far out of your mind ---- please tell me where you hunt so that I can stay as far away as possible.

What the H are you talking about?

Please see the post below:

So nice of you to add your useless opinion dumpafish. Your buddy who wrote the article is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and probably a fascist, so what. Sometimes even traitors can write something intellegent like Justice Scalia did in the court opinion cited above. He maybe a total scum bag deserving to swing from the end of a short rope but even he comes up with some decent opinions once and awhile.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but none that I want to read in a outdoors HSOforum - DumpaFish edited his post quickly but wrote it. Terrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I to agree with McCain on the gun show background checks and I think a majority of people do also. One reason I think the NRA fights these types of things is that if they give in on this issue there is another more restrictive one behind it that the gun control crowd will be pushing for. Kind of like drawing a line in the sand. The antis have to get past this law before they can go on to the next more restrictive one. It would be nice if both sides could sit down and say I will agree with gun show checks if you will agree to not overtaxing amo etc. but things just do not seem to work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I to agree with McCain on the gun show background checks and I think a majority of people do also. One reason I think the NRA fights these types of things is that if they give in on this issue there is another more restrictive one behind it that the gun control crowd will be pushing for. Kind of like drawing a line in the sand. The antis have to get past this law before they can go on to the next more restrictive one. It would be nice if both sides could sit down and say I will agree with gun show checks if you will agree to not overtaxing amo etc. but things just do not seem to work that way.

You're probably right on the "give an inch take a mile" mindset however I'm a bit more cynical towards the NRA as IMO they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing industry. If you clamp down on the background checks, you reduce the number of gun sales, which reduces their profit. Ever since the NRA supported cop killer bullets, I never again viewed them as a worthwhile organization. (did I just date myself, again laugh )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: fishorgolf
I to agree with McCain on the gun show background checks and I think a majority of people do also. One reason I think the NRA fights these types of things is that if they give in on this issue there is another more restrictive one behind it that the gun control crowd will be pushing for. Kind of like drawing a line in the sand. The antis have to get past this law before they can go on to the next more restrictive one. It would be nice if both sides could sit down and say I will agree with gun show checks if you will agree to not overtaxing amo etc. but things just do not seem to work that way.

You're probably right on the "give an inch take a mile" mindset however I'm a bit more cynical towards the NRA as IMO they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing industry. If you clamp down on the background checks, you reduce the number of gun sales, which reduces their profit. Ever since the NRA supported cop killer bullets, I never again viewed them as a worthwhile organization. (did I just date myself, again laugh )

As the NRA being a "gun industry mouthpiece" the same could be said most of the fishing and hunting shows and magazines out there. I know this is diff. than taking about guns but the point is still valid.

I personally have not been and NRA member for many years but if they can be the deciding factor in the election I just may join up again. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: MNmikew
Originally Posted By: tealitup
What? Stating that a Supreme Court Justice needs to "swing" - come on! Do we really need to be making hate speeches that condone a lynching?

If you are that far out of your mind ---- please tell me where you hunt so that I can stay as far away as possible.

What the H are you talking about?

Please see the post below:

So nice of you to add your useless opinion dumpafish. Your buddy who wrote the article is an one-who-thinks-I-am-silly and probably a fascist, so what. Sometimes even traitors can write something intellegent like Justice Scalia did in the court opinion cited above. He maybe a total scum bag deserving to swing from the end of a short rope but even he comes up with some decent opinions once and awhile.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but none that I want to read in a outdoors HSOforum - DumpaFish edited his post quickly but wrote it. Terrible

From the way you quoted it (you didnt) made is seem like you directed this at me. Totally agree on DaD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone here actually been to a gun show lately? There is very little private sales going on. Almost everyone is a licensed FFL and they MUST do background checks, period.

Heck the last two I've been to had very few guns period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since the NRA supported cop killer bullets, I never again viewed them as a worthwhile organization. (did I just date myself, again laugh )

The NRA supporting "cop killer" bullets is almost as big a myth as cop killer bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA supporting "cop killer" bullets is almost as big a myth as cop killer bullets.

That was kind of what I was thinking......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA supporting "cop killer" bullets is almost as big a myth as cop killer bullets.

Cop Killers

The term "cop-killers" is generally used to describe bullets capable of penetrating police officers' bulletproof vests. Police officers supported the Law Enforcement Officers' Protection Act (PL 99-408), which became law in 1986. It amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to ban the manufacture or importation of certain varieties of armorpiercing ammunition. The law defined the banned ammunition as handgun bullets made of specific hard metals: tungsten alloys, steel, brass, bronze, iron, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. (Standard ammunition is made from lead.) It also decreed that the licenses of dealers who knowingly sold such ammunition should be revoked.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control Act broadened the ban to include other metal-alloy ammunition. Both laws limit the sale of such bullets to the U.S. military or to the police.

The legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition was politically important because it polarized two traditionally allied groups—police officers and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA had long assisted in training police officers in marksmanship. The police saw the ammunition ban as a personal issue, because the socalled "cop-killer" bullets were intended to harm them. A police lobbying group, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee (LESC), was formed to get this and other legislation passed. The NRA opposed the legislation as originally written because, it said, it would have also banned most of the types of ammunition used for hunting and target shooting. The final version of the legislation exempted bullets made for rifles and sporting purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0