Posted on 06/30/2009 4:15:15 AM PDT by marktwain
Ever since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller on June 26, 2008 in which Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion left open the door to open to some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, both sides – gun rights activists and gun prohibitionists – have been battling over just what might be considered a “reasonable” gun control statute or ordinance.
On one side, constitutional absolutists insist that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute, that there may be no restrictions on the individual right to own any kind of firearm one wants.
On the other side, gun prohibitionists – perhaps clinging to some shred of denial that the Scalia opinion was wrong and that there truly is no individual right protected by the Second Amendment – argue that all manner of restrictions are acceptable.
So the question now, as the country waits to see whether the high court will take a case that may determine whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states as a limit on the authority of state and local governments to regulate arms, what is “reasonable” in terms of gun regulations?
1) Should we require background checks on all firearms transfers, whether at a gun shop, a gun show, or between friends, neighbors and even family members?
2) Should gun owners be licensed and every one of their firearms registered? How frequently should these licenses be renewed (annually, every five years, or should they be lifetime licenses)?
3) Should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection? Barack Obama is on record opposing concealed carry, arguing that it could lead to more violence, not less.
4) Open carry is legal in many states, and there is a small but gradually expanding Open Carry movement. Should legislatures pass laws banning open carry, or keep their hands off our guns?
5) Should laws prohibiting private citizens from carrying guns in certain places including restaurants, cocktail lounges and taverns, courthouses, public buildings including federal buildings, public parks (city, state, national), public and private schools, colleges and universities be repealed?
6) Should we expand laws prohibiting concealed or openly-carried handguns in certain venues to include all public property?
7) Should we renew and expand the ban on so-called “assault weapons?”
8) Should restoration of voting rights for convicted felons be tied to restoration of firearms rights for the same individuals?
9) Should gun owners be required to store their guns unloaded and locked at home?
10) Should citizens be limited to one gun purchase per month, or should there be no limit on the number of guns a private citizen can buy and sell.
11) Should the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be given added authority to inspect the homes of gun owners, or should the agency be abolished and the practices of its agents investigated by independent prosecutors?
12) Last and not least, which statement best describes you:
a) I own guns for protection, target shooting, hunting and for no reason at all; it’s none of your business or the government’s business why I own guns, what kinds of guns, how many or where I keep them.
b) I do not own guns, and will not allow one in my home for any reason. They are dangerous, only the police and military should have guns, and private handgun ownership should be strictly regulated or banned altogether.
What is “reasonable” to one person may be outrageous to another. How you answered the questions above may determine whether you should join the National Rifle Association or send a contribution to the Violence Policy Center.
Last and not least, which statement best describes you:
All men .. are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; the matter is, therefore, between Him and me. Beyond that, I really don’t give a rat’s @ss what you think about the issue. Go away and don’t bother me.
http://cryptome.org/iran-protest/iran-protest.htm
Here’s some photos from Iran - look at the police carrying those rubber batons - if those people were FREE and had the right to own a handgun/rifle - do you think those police would be out there beating them for expressing their right at free speech and assembly?
(UCANSEE2 - this this plain enough for you)
Take our weapons away and we are no longer a people that has a means to BEAT BACK GOVT. - and it will be the govt that will be beating us!
Great article...
Gun Laws
Unfortunately these laws are more about control of the people then about safety or crime and there for the issue willnever go away.
We ahve laws against murder and still people murder
We have laws against rape and still people rape.
We have laws against robbery and still people rob.
Criminals by definition are going to break laws.
1) No
2) NO
3) Yes
4) Yes, and most emphatically Yes
5) Yes
6) No
7) No
8) No, keep it separated
9) No, but it sure does keep things neat and tidy if you do.
10) No
11) No, and what good would that do?
12) A
I aced this one! Next...
Heller did not go far enough. Using words like “reasonable” in a ruling is not acceptable in defending an Amendment with the words “shall not be infringed”
No. All background checks are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
2) Should gun owners be licensed and every one of their firearms registered? How frequently should these licenses be renewed (annually, every five years, or should they be lifetime licenses)?
No license of any kind is Constitutional.
3) Should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection? Barack Obama is on record opposing concealed carry, arguing that it could lead to more violence, not less.
Yes
4) Open carry is legal in many states, and there is a small but gradually expanding Open Carry movement. Should legislatures pass laws banning open carry, or keep their hands off our guns?
No
5) Should laws prohibiting private citizens from carrying guns in certain places including restaurants, cocktail lounges and taverns, courthouses, public buildings including federal buildings, public parks (city, state, national), public and private schools, colleges and universities be repealed?
No
6) Should we expand laws prohibiting concealed or openly-carried handguns in certain venues to include all public property?
yes
7) Should we renew and expand the ban on so-called “assault weapons?”
No
8) Should restoration of voting rights for convicted felons be tied to restoration of firearms rights for the same individuals?
Yes. Actually, all rights should be restored once they are released. Either they have paid their debt to society, or they have not. If not, keep them locked up until they have.
9) Should gun owners be required to store their guns unloaded and locked at home?
No, What use is an unloaded gun?
10) Should citizens be limited to one gun purchase per month, or should there be no limit on the number of guns a private citizen can buy and sell.
Should citizens be limited to the purchase of one newspaper or book a month?
11) Should the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be given added authority to inspect the homes of gun owners, or should the agency be abolished and the practices of its agents investigated by independent prosecutors?
The agency should be abolished and its agents driven out of polite society.
12) Last and not least, which statement best describes you:
a) I own guns for protection, target shooting, hunting and for no reason at all; it’s none of your business or the government’s business why I own guns, what kinds of guns, how many or where I keep them.
b) I do not own guns, and will not allow one in my home for any reason. They are dangerous, only the police and military should have guns, and private handgun ownership should be strictly regulated or banned altogether.
A.
The Supreme Court has established that fundamental rights are not subject to infringement simply because the government can propose a reason to do so.
The strongest protection for fundamental rights is called "strict scrutiny" and requires not just that the government has a reason for a law, but, along with other requirements, that the government has a "compelling interest" in accomplishing the goal of the law.
The Courts have established very clearly that the police have no obligation to protect individuals under most circumstances. Thus it cannot be claimed that the government has a "compelling interest" to accomplish any of the gun-banners claimed goals since they all boil down to protecting individuals from the claimed harm from guns, which is NOT a compelling government interest.
IMHO, anyone who supports the Constitution needs to come out openly against background checks, not only because they can be used to infringe upon law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms, but also because those in power have openly stated a desire to use them for precisely that purpose.
A further requirement is that there be no practical and effective alternative way to carry out such a compelling interest which would cause less of an infringement of liberties, though the Court tends to give enormous latitude with regard to what alternatives might be 'practical' and 'effective'. To the extent that such issues may involve factual matters, a legitimate Constitutional government would permit them to be examined by juries; that does not seem to be allowed in the present government, however.
Note that it is entirely possible that a particular statute may in some particular circumstances infringe upon someone's RKBA, even if the statute in general would not infringe. A proper interpretation of the Second and Sixth Amendments would allow people to claim before a jury that a particular application of a statute would be an infringement of their RKBA, and that they must thus be exempted from that application of the statute. Note that such a finding would not necessarily have to contradict any sort of precedent, since it would be essentially impossible for any precedent to have considered an absolutely identical case.
1) Repeal gun control laws. In general, the more that are repealed, the better.
2) Don’t make new ones.
Anti-gunners are not going to like the prospect that every gun statute will be looked at the same way that anti-speech laws or anti-abortion laws are viewed.
How about a ten day "cooling off period" before buying a Bible or aborting a baby? How about a registry for books or for women exercising their penumbral right to kill the unborn?
Let's hear the pro-death squads tell us its okay to regulate the right to keep and bear arms in any way that a legislature finds reasonable.
“...if those people were FREE and had the right to own a handgun/rifle - do you think those police would be out there beating them for expressing their right at free speech and assembly?”
No, the military would be hosing down the streets with heavy weapons, but at least both sides would know they were playing for keeps, and that would be a good thing, too.
Molon labe.
[No, the military would be hosing down the streets with heavy weapons, but at least both sides would know they were playing for keeps, and that would be a good thing, too.]
From the perspective in Iraq, very little is done by the military or police forces because every Iraq citizen is allowed at least 1 AK per household for protection - very seldom does the “hosing down” take place throughout Iraq. I can attest that the same is and would be true in the US - I doubt the military (which I am part of) would kill civilians demonstrating in the streets while they slung a rifle on their shoulder.
My point is that free men that have access to firearms stay free from what would otherwise be a repressive government.
What may occur in Iraq once we leave is a nation wide ban on firearms (even though there are so many weapon caches across the country) in order to repress each of the respective tribal areas throughout that area.
...and yes, both sides would know where the other stood and playing for keeps determines whether there will be a free country or an empire...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.