So the question I have is this: there have been serious infringements on the clear language of the Second Amendment in the past, no doubt. Check your guns at the town marshal’s office. Felons don’t get to bear arms. How do you reconcile this legally with the law?
I’ve discussed this issue with you before, DC, and I came around to your way of thinking on incorporation. I have an open mind on this and actually think that probably both the practices above are overreaching. But I’d like to hear you reconcile those practices with an expansive reading of the people’s right to bear arms, if that is possible.
Once punishment is up, you should get your Rights back. I don't agree with the way the system is currently set up. I think it sets the stage for our very high recidivism rates. Couple that with anti-gun legislation keeping victims from ventilating their attackers, and you get what we have today.
It's not a comfortable fit. But when you commit a crime against someone, you are first violating their Rights. Hence we feel justified in removing your Rights as punishment.
if they arent trustworthy enough to be on the streets with access to any 'arms' imaginable, why are they allowed access to my kids ???
as for the town marshalls office, Im assuming that the ole marshall has a gun or two also, whats he skeered of if a citizen is in his presence ???
how about we not be forced to waste our time in his office in the first place over trivial infractions for revenue generation and the pyramids of liscenses, permits and fee ???
how about schools too ??? id rather a parent or teacher be equipped to shot a whackjob, rather than curling up in the corner waitin to die...
name it, Ill prolly tell ya to expect, if not demand that FRee citizens are armed there, and see the benefits always outweighin the negatives...
my .02