-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Louisiana Gun Confiscation
- Thread starter ibear
- Start date
My point to all this being that if the ACLU thought they had a fighting chance of upholding the 2nd as an individual right they would, but just like inflammatory speech they wouldn't probably try to overturn precedent unless they found some new and compelling way they though they could. - hollowdweller
***********************************************
Great point, if the ACLU was so inclined, but they are not inclined at all! Interestingly enough, the long standing legal precedent is that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right! We agree that the ACLU has an opinion that is in the minority.
This opinion is based on one court case, decided
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
ACLU: We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. (FALSE ASSUMPTION) The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF: The national ACLU claims they are neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. - The ACLU
Major outpoint here is that the right to drive automobiles is not an inalienable right guaranteed in our constitution. The ACLU has decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, (based on the preamble of the 2nd Amendment) they take the position that this is a collective right and can only be assigned to a militia group, such as the National Guard, which means that Congress can limit or remove gun ownership as they see fit. Further, they cite the 1939 Supreme Court case of US. vs. Miller, as proof that the Supreme Court agrees with their beliefs.
And finally, they take the fall back position that even if their first two reasons do not hold water, the 2nd is now outdated because the founding fathers could not have envisioned the type of arms that are currently available and the dangers of a few using firearms in criminal activity outweigh the value of this right to society.
Their entire position rests on the assumption that the term "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is different from the term "the people" that is used everywhere else in the Constitution and throughout the Bill of Rights.
"The ACLU claims to agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
OUTPOINT: This decsion is based on the preamble, (a subordinate clause that cannot stand alone) of the 2nd amendment.
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- ACLU Policy #47
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.
HERE IS PROOF: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. As you may note, the court has based their ruling only on the preamble.... (A well regulated militia is stated in the courts opinion as if it were not a subordinate clause) Of course, a preamble cannot be the basis of law since it has no legal ability to stand on its own! This obvious conclusion has been ignored by the ACLU and they refuse to consider it, contrary to their claims.
The majority of the members and leadership of the ACLU have never fired or even held a firearm. Their knowledge of firearms has been developed through movies, television, and the media. Therefore, many view firearms and firearm owners as part of the criminal threat to society. Certainly they ignore, that most often firearm owners do exactly the opposite of criminal activity. We witnessed this in New Orleans when the people formed militias to protect themselves. We witnessed this in Los Angeles during the riots when gun owners defended their stores with shotguns.
Furthering their perceived fear of firearms is a belief that various firearm related activities, such as hunting, are unacceptable in a civilized society. And lastly, their lack of contact with firearms and knowledge around the subject, makes it easy for them to believe that the rights listed under the 2nd Amendment are, in the arena of individual rights, unnecessary and even expendable.
Until the members and leadership of the ACLU overcome their hypocritical desire to lessen the individual rights of those that they dont understand or agree with, they will never truly be viewed as an organization interested in supporting individual rights. Rather, they will be considered just another special interest group with a holier than thou belief system when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks,
iBear
***********************************************
Great point, if the ACLU was so inclined, but they are not inclined at all! Interestingly enough, the long standing legal precedent is that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right! We agree that the ACLU has an opinion that is in the minority.
This opinion is based on one court case, decided
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
ACLU: We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. (FALSE ASSUMPTION) The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF: The national ACLU claims they are neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. - The ACLU
Major outpoint here is that the right to drive automobiles is not an inalienable right guaranteed in our constitution. The ACLU has decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, (based on the preamble of the 2nd Amendment) they take the position that this is a collective right and can only be assigned to a militia group, such as the National Guard, which means that Congress can limit or remove gun ownership as they see fit. Further, they cite the 1939 Supreme Court case of US. vs. Miller, as proof that the Supreme Court agrees with their beliefs.
And finally, they take the fall back position that even if their first two reasons do not hold water, the 2nd is now outdated because the founding fathers could not have envisioned the type of arms that are currently available and the dangers of a few using firearms in criminal activity outweigh the value of this right to society.
Their entire position rests on the assumption that the term "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is different from the term "the people" that is used everywhere else in the Constitution and throughout the Bill of Rights.
"The ACLU claims to agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
OUTPOINT: This decsion is based on the preamble, (a subordinate clause that cannot stand alone) of the 2nd amendment.
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- ACLU Policy #47
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.
HERE IS PROOF: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. As you may note, the court has based their ruling only on the preamble.... (A well regulated militia is stated in the courts opinion as if it were not a subordinate clause) Of course, a preamble cannot be the basis of law since it has no legal ability to stand on its own! This obvious conclusion has been ignored by the ACLU and they refuse to consider it, contrary to their claims.
The majority of the members and leadership of the ACLU have never fired or even held a firearm. Their knowledge of firearms has been developed through movies, television, and the media. Therefore, many view firearms and firearm owners as part of the criminal threat to society. Certainly they ignore, that most often firearm owners do exactly the opposite of criminal activity. We witnessed this in New Orleans when the people formed militias to protect themselves. We witnessed this in Los Angeles during the riots when gun owners defended their stores with shotguns.
Furthering their perceived fear of firearms is a belief that various firearm related activities, such as hunting, are unacceptable in a civilized society. And lastly, their lack of contact with firearms and knowledge around the subject, makes it easy for them to believe that the rights listed under the 2nd Amendment are, in the arena of individual rights, unnecessary and even expendable.
Until the members and leadership of the ACLU overcome their hypocritical desire to lessen the individual rights of those that they dont understand or agree with, they will never truly be viewed as an organization interested in supporting individual rights. Rather, they will be considered just another special interest group with a holier than thou belief system when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks,
iBear
The misguided rationale of the ACLU seems to be that since people submit to registering their cars and obtaining licenses to drive them, they should be willing to submit to the same for all their other property, such as guns. Notwithstanding the fact that owning and driving a car is unarguably a legal privilege, and owning a gun is arguably a right, it would be instructive to make further comparisons.
Why do we register cars? We register them to tax them, plain and simple. Those taxes support numerous government activities, typically related to maintaining the extensive infrastructure related to the use and misuse of cars. Incidental to registration is that cars are provided with license plates that make them uniquely identifiable in public. Thereby, if police wish to chase a particular vehicle containing someone who is suspected of committing some crime, the vehicle can be differentiated readily from the numerous other similar cars on the road.
However, hot pursuit of handguns is unheard of. When it comes to recovering a stolen vehicle, the serial number on the engine is ultimately the most important identification since license plates can be taken off easily, or replaced with stolen plates that dont belong to that car. All modern firearms similarly come from the factory with serial numbers. Recently, we have used registration of cars to insure compliance with smog regulations; this is hardly applicable to firearms.
Hollowdweller, you bring up some excellent points. I have tried to respond with sufficient data to demonstrate the illogical aspect of their conclusions.
We license drivers to collect taxes, and to be sure that drivers have mastered the rather complex set of motor skills to actually operate a vehicle and to be able to safely navigate amongst the other cars they share the road with.
There is also a large body of laws that specifically proscribe complex legal behavior while operating a vehicle on a public roadway dotted yellow lines, solid yellow lines, double yellow lines, etc. We also license drivers to be sure that they dont have any physical impairments that would make them a hazard on the road to other drivers. Having a physical impairment rarely prevents anyone from shooting a gun. In fact, they may have a greater need for a gun than those who dont have physical handicaps and can run away or fight back against an assailant.
Now, it should be noted that automobiles require no licensing if the car is not going to be driven on public roads. That is, if one only drives their vehicle on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. If you want to buy a classic vehicle and park it in your garage and admire it, there is no requirement for registration or licensing.
If you choose not to use a car for a year or more, you do not have to license it and you are not at risk of having it confiscated. And, you can buy as many cars as you like, with as powerful an engine as you like, with the only restriction being what you can personally afford. Again, driving a car is a legal privilege that only requires registration and licensing if used on public roadways. By analogy, anyone wanting a gun for self-defense in their home or business should not have to register their gun or obtain a license.
Target shooters usually use their guns at privately owned ranges, so there is no compelling public interest in taxing guns used at private ranges. In the case of hunters, using their guns on public land, they long ago willingly imposed taxes on themselves through the purchase of guns and ammunition and hunting licenses to support their activities.
The reasons commonly stated for registering guns? Some law enforcement claims that it will help solve crimes. Even if ballistic forensics associates a particular gun with a crime, knowing who legally owns the gun will probably be of little help. Any criminal with intelligence enough to tie his shoelaces isnt going to use a gun registered in his name to commit a crime. Therefore, one can readily predict that career criminals arent going to register their guns, even if they could. However, one of the consequences of registration might well be an increase in the theft of firearms as would-be criminals, who do not yet have a criminal record, steal or purchase stolen guns to commit their crimes, because they know that the purchase of a new gun would result in immediate registration.
Even today, when guns are rarely registered, a paper trail usually exists. When crime guns are traced, one comes up with a list of either past owners or the original purchaser. It doesnt provide the name of the individual who used the gun in a criminal act nor will registration.
Thanks,
iBear
Why do we register cars? We register them to tax them, plain and simple. Those taxes support numerous government activities, typically related to maintaining the extensive infrastructure related to the use and misuse of cars. Incidental to registration is that cars are provided with license plates that make them uniquely identifiable in public. Thereby, if police wish to chase a particular vehicle containing someone who is suspected of committing some crime, the vehicle can be differentiated readily from the numerous other similar cars on the road.
However, hot pursuit of handguns is unheard of. When it comes to recovering a stolen vehicle, the serial number on the engine is ultimately the most important identification since license plates can be taken off easily, or replaced with stolen plates that dont belong to that car. All modern firearms similarly come from the factory with serial numbers. Recently, we have used registration of cars to insure compliance with smog regulations; this is hardly applicable to firearms.
Hollowdweller, you bring up some excellent points. I have tried to respond with sufficient data to demonstrate the illogical aspect of their conclusions.
We license drivers to collect taxes, and to be sure that drivers have mastered the rather complex set of motor skills to actually operate a vehicle and to be able to safely navigate amongst the other cars they share the road with.
There is also a large body of laws that specifically proscribe complex legal behavior while operating a vehicle on a public roadway dotted yellow lines, solid yellow lines, double yellow lines, etc. We also license drivers to be sure that they dont have any physical impairments that would make them a hazard on the road to other drivers. Having a physical impairment rarely prevents anyone from shooting a gun. In fact, they may have a greater need for a gun than those who dont have physical handicaps and can run away or fight back against an assailant.
Now, it should be noted that automobiles require no licensing if the car is not going to be driven on public roads. That is, if one only drives their vehicle on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. If you want to buy a classic vehicle and park it in your garage and admire it, there is no requirement for registration or licensing.
If you choose not to use a car for a year or more, you do not have to license it and you are not at risk of having it confiscated. And, you can buy as many cars as you like, with as powerful an engine as you like, with the only restriction being what you can personally afford. Again, driving a car is a legal privilege that only requires registration and licensing if used on public roadways. By analogy, anyone wanting a gun for self-defense in their home or business should not have to register their gun or obtain a license.
Target shooters usually use their guns at privately owned ranges, so there is no compelling public interest in taxing guns used at private ranges. In the case of hunters, using their guns on public land, they long ago willingly imposed taxes on themselves through the purchase of guns and ammunition and hunting licenses to support their activities.
The reasons commonly stated for registering guns? Some law enforcement claims that it will help solve crimes. Even if ballistic forensics associates a particular gun with a crime, knowing who legally owns the gun will probably be of little help. Any criminal with intelligence enough to tie his shoelaces isnt going to use a gun registered in his name to commit a crime. Therefore, one can readily predict that career criminals arent going to register their guns, even if they could. However, one of the consequences of registration might well be an increase in the theft of firearms as would-be criminals, who do not yet have a criminal record, steal or purchase stolen guns to commit their crimes, because they know that the purchase of a new gun would result in immediate registration.
Even today, when guns are rarely registered, a paper trail usually exists. When crime guns are traced, one comes up with a list of either past owners or the original purchaser. It doesnt provide the name of the individual who used the gun in a criminal act nor will registration.
Thanks,
iBear
Tom[/QUOTE]
Ultimately, the constitution is the highest authority. The judges are not infallible, nor the final word.
If "the People" doesn't mean individuals in the 2nd amendment, we have no rights as individuals at all.
The constitution will mean what it says when we are willing to make it mean what it says.
Danny is right. It is once again time to contact my elected officials... gravertom
*********************************************************
After every major gun involvement (good or bad) they take guns away from the people that didn't do it!
The real social problem is illegal use of guns by what are by definition criminals. It is neither appropriate nor effective to impose restrictions or financial burdens on law-abiding citizens. With confiscation we see again, that law abiding citizens are penalized for no crime.... only for gun ownership!
Another probable consequence of requiring a fee for owning a gun is that retired people, living on fixed incomes, may find that given a choice between eating and keeping their gun, they would choose to buy food. Yet, when one is old and frail, the need for self-protection, in the form of a gun, may be greater than when they were hale and hearty.
Our insensitive legislators, who feel that they know what is best for everyone, would take that 2nd Amendment Right away if they could. Here in New Orleans we see the 2nd Amednment right directly ignored and circumvented with the rationale that the might of Government makes right! Yet, these restrictions apply to everyone.
However, it should be evident that the requirement for automobile and driver licensing has not prevented minors from stealing and driving cars or, as has proven to be the case, to commit other crimes as well.
No one is seriously suggesting that we should ban cars or somehow restrict ownership of cars by adults. However, the same can not be said for guns. Registration is a strawman. It only has two real uses: to collect taxes and to serve as a database for later confiscation of the guns.
Thanks,
iBear
Ultimately, the constitution is the highest authority. The judges are not infallible, nor the final word.
If "the People" doesn't mean individuals in the 2nd amendment, we have no rights as individuals at all.
The constitution will mean what it says when we are willing to make it mean what it says.
Danny is right. It is once again time to contact my elected officials... gravertom
*********************************************************
After every major gun involvement (good or bad) they take guns away from the people that didn't do it!
The real social problem is illegal use of guns by what are by definition criminals. It is neither appropriate nor effective to impose restrictions or financial burdens on law-abiding citizens. With confiscation we see again, that law abiding citizens are penalized for no crime.... only for gun ownership!
Another probable consequence of requiring a fee for owning a gun is that retired people, living on fixed incomes, may find that given a choice between eating and keeping their gun, they would choose to buy food. Yet, when one is old and frail, the need for self-protection, in the form of a gun, may be greater than when they were hale and hearty.
Our insensitive legislators, who feel that they know what is best for everyone, would take that 2nd Amendment Right away if they could. Here in New Orleans we see the 2nd Amednment right directly ignored and circumvented with the rationale that the might of Government makes right! Yet, these restrictions apply to everyone.
However, it should be evident that the requirement for automobile and driver licensing has not prevented minors from stealing and driving cars or, as has proven to be the case, to commit other crimes as well.
No one is seriously suggesting that we should ban cars or somehow restrict ownership of cars by adults. However, the same can not be said for guns. Registration is a strawman. It only has two real uses: to collect taxes and to serve as a database for later confiscation of the guns.
Thanks,
iBear
In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New OrleansSemper Fi said:
has devolved from its status as an elective body, into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves.
At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National
Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into
homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the
residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the
guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.
Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the
Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those
buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small
world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of
the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim
results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies
rotting in a non-functional freezer.
In the rest of the city, some 500 police officers abandoned their posts, while
others joined the looting spree. For several days, the 1,000 officers who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them.
To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many
good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses
with their own firearms.
These people were operating within their 2nd Amendment legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a
legitimate citizen's arrest.
The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens
legitimately defending lives and property. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia.
The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to
be thanked for helping to save some of their city.
The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but
failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel
evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest.
The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any
reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey
orders to leave.
iBear
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,206
For your review and consideration:
www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
What Ohio's Constitution says:
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up . . . ."
What La. Const. says:
"The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
Turns out the present U.S. Militia Law says that all able bodied men 18-44 who are NOT in the National Guard are the "unorgainzed militia." The 1791 Militia Law prescribed the same age group but was detailed as to weapon and ammunition to be readily at hand.
www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
What Ohio's Constitution says:
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up . . . ."
What La. Const. says:
"The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
Turns out the present U.S. Militia Law says that all able bodied men 18-44 who are NOT in the National Guard are the "unorgainzed militia." The 1791 Militia Law prescribed the same age group but was detailed as to weapon and ammunition to be readily at hand.
As you point out, with this unorganized militia law, it would seem to confirm that these good citizens, defending their lives and their homes, with organized patrols, were acting responsibly and legally, in spite of the claims of Government.Thomas Linton said:
Likely what occurred is that they could not catch, or by several accounts, out of fear, did not want to try to catch the gun carrying criminals, so they decided it is easier to pursue the people that had nothing to do with any crime. And, their gun roud up has apparently proven effective at removing guns from those good people that didn't commit any crime.
Sad story!
iBear
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 3,548
ibear said:
That's what the internet is good for...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=155672
Little old lady being tackled:
http://www.ktvu.com/video/4946889/detail.html
If you notice, that neighborhood is not underwater...
The video with folks handcuffed:
http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall
- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 4,855
GOA has a webpage on this issue at http://www.gunowners.org/notb.htm , complete with videos.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
ibear said:
Oh I agree with you 100% that it is illogical. My point is if there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to individual posession of firearms then how is the DC gun ban possible? How is/has San Francisco been able to ban firearms and Calif. ban certain types of guns? AND how is NO confiscating guns? And if it IS unconstitutional why is the NRA not suing and taking it to the Supremes so we can get a precedent that would overturn some of this regressive gun legislation??
I in no way feel that the Second Amendment protects me from some legislature passing a law or some official declaring marshal law and rounding up guns. I probably would not be opposed to registering guns just like cars with a title if I felt the Second Amendment really offered my right to own guns protection. Elections would not be lost and won on gun control stances if people thought that the Second Amendment really protected their rights.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,206
hollowdweller said:
The Second Amendment bars federal action only. Putting it another way, it does not bar any action by a state or local government. The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment is not extended to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(That position is consistent with the expressed views of the courts [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Hickman v. Block (9th Cir. 1996), U.S. v. Hale (8th Cir. 1992), U.S. v. Oakes (10th Cir. 1977)] that the Second Amendment is solely intended to protect state organized militia from federal tyranny, a view that is in error in my view.)
However, most states guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms, including La. (quote from La. Const. above).
In La., we are dealing with federal and state personnel. We also have volunteers from outside La., some of whom may not have been properly deputized as officials of either the federal or La. government.
The potential legal exposure for involuntarily disarming the citizens is quite significant and ought to be.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
Thomas Linton said:
EXCELLENT post!!!!! :thumbup:
You guys need to check out this little ABC World News video. http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg
They're not breaking down doors......SURE! The reporter tells us that what we just saw didn't happen. These mindless dopes are just following orders to take lawfully owned guns. Heck, they're not even charging the owners with anything. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO THESE CITY OFFICIALS CONFISCATE LAWFULLY OWNED PRIVATE PROPERTY....WITH NO COMPENSATION. When will these people get their guns back??? How will they be distributed??? Where is the court order and paper work???
LEOs out there.......What would you do? Follow orders, or tell your chief he can shove it?
National Guardsmen..........Are you ready to kill an American Citizen to enforce an unconstitutional order?
What's next? Khukuris??? The Bible??? I mean, if they can do this, and there is no outrage, what CAN"T they do?? Or, rather, what won't they be willing to try?
Pardon me...did I say I'm really steamed???
They're not breaking down doors......SURE! The reporter tells us that what we just saw didn't happen. These mindless dopes are just following orders to take lawfully owned guns. Heck, they're not even charging the owners with anything. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO THESE CITY OFFICIALS CONFISCATE LAWFULLY OWNED PRIVATE PROPERTY....WITH NO COMPENSATION. When will these people get their guns back??? How will they be distributed??? Where is the court order and paper work???
LEOs out there.......What would you do? Follow orders, or tell your chief he can shove it?
National Guardsmen..........Are you ready to kill an American Citizen to enforce an unconstitutional order?
What's next? Khukuris??? The Bible??? I mean, if they can do this, and there is no outrage, what CAN"T they do?? Or, rather, what won't they be willing to try?
Pardon me...did I say I'm really steamed???
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
" I probably would not be opposed to registering guns just like cars with a title if I felt the Second Amendment really offered my right to own guns protection. "
The problem with registering guns is that experience has shown that guns once registered are more likely than not to be easily collected when banned.
The problem with registering guns is that experience has shown that guns once registered are more likely than not to be easily collected when banned.
Now, it should be noted that automobiles require no licensing if the car is not going to be driven on public roads. That is, if one only drives their vehicle on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. If you want to buy a classic vehicle and park it in your garage and admire it, there is no requirement for registration or licensing.hollowdweller said:
If you choose not to use a car for a year or more, you do not have to license it and you are not at risk of having it confiscated. And, you can buy as many cars as you like, with as powerful an engine as you like, with the only restriction being what you can personally afford. Again, driving a car is a legal privilege that only requires registration and licensing if used on public roadways. By analogy, anyone wanting a gun for self-defense in their home or business should not have to register their gun or obtain a license.
Target shooters usually use their guns at privately owned ranges, so there is no compelling public interest in taxing guns used at private ranges. In the case of hunters, using their guns on public land, they long ago willingly imposed taxes on themselves through the purchase of guns and ammunition and hunting licenses to support their activities.
The reasons commonly stated for registering guns? Some law enforcement claims that it will help solve crimes. Even if ballistic forensics associates a particular gun with a crime, knowing who legally owns the gun will probably be of little help. Any criminal with intelligence enough to tie his shoelaces isnt going to use a gun registered in his name to commit a crime. Therefore, one can readily predict that career criminals arent going to register their guns, even if they could. However, one of the consequences of registration might well be an increase in the theft of firearms as would-be criminals, who do not yet have a criminal record, steal or purchase stolen guns to commit their crimes, because they know that the purchase of a new gun would result in immediate registration.
Even today, when guns are rarely registered, a paper trail usually exists. When crime guns are traced, one comes up with a list of either past owners or the original purchaser. It doesnt provide the name of the individual who used the gun in a criminal act nor will registration.
iBear
You are steamed and so am I! Very upset! These heroes that organized a militia and saved their community should be rewarded with praise and awards.... a heroes banquet of validation...... not subjcted to illegal tyranny!MTrcic said:
Makes me like that sniveling Mayor less and less.
Thanks,
iBear
