No debate. With concealed carry legal, the bad guys don't know who's carrying. With open carry, they know who their first targets are.
"Look at the number of States that are abandoning common sense and freedom in favor of Nazi gun control laws."
Baloney. Every year more states add concealed carry. What are we up to now, 46?
"Stand Your Ground" bills are now being considered in 21 states, replacing the old "duty to retreat" laws. There is much more tolerance for shooting in self-defense and protecting property.
So some states have laws against "assault-style" weapons. Too bad for them. But that's their prerogative under a federated republic. What we no longer have is a federal AWB. And that's good.
"the "F" part of the BATFE shouldn't exist, nor should any of the machine gun/DD/class III bans."
The BATFE is a licensing and tax collecting agency. Licensing and taxing is not infringement.
"The Right to keep and bear arms codified the Right of a person to protect themselves, their property, and those around them."
Correct. And the person's state constitution protects that right, not the second amendment.
"There literally was no other way for them to ensure that they would have enough ARMED people show up if they called up a militia for whatever reason."
So what? The federal government has the power under Article I, Section 10 to arm them.
"The ONLY legislation that Congress can Constitutionally pass in regards to RKBA would be regulations for the State militia's when called up"
No, under the second amendment, Congress can pass any RKBA legislation they wish that does not affect the forming of a state Militia.
"No mere State level law can negate the Second."
Yes then can and have. The second amendment does not apply to state law. Every single court in every single ruling has stated that.
bookmarking
The second amendment does not apply to state law. Every single court in every single ruling has stated that.
Obsessional, unsupported BS. -- Feel free to continue digging your democratic 'majority rule' hole robbie.
Paulsen:
"--- The second amendment does not apply to state law. --"
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Address:http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
-- Ms Brady agrees. --
Much debate. CCW limits what you can carry. How fast you can present your firearm to an agressor. And your "first targets" bs kinda falls apart when you consider the number of military, police, and security personnel that carry openly and are never assaulted. Also, refer to the Expansion Westward days when open carry was the standard.
Baloney. Every year more states add concealed carry. What are we up to now, 46?
So, you think jumping through the "guilty until proven innocent" hoops, paying the registration fees, having to register like a sex offender would, this is all what the Founding intent was? I knew you were screwed up, but that is a stretch even for you. There are only 2 States that have "Constitutional" CCW laws. Alaska and Vermont. Of those two, only Alaska has the right idea. Open, concealed, pistol, rifle, shotgun... they don't care. It's only what you DO with it that can get you in trouble.
Also, your post completely ignores all the "assault weapon" bans, "sniper rifle" bans, "Saturday night special" bans, not to mention all the Federal infringements via teh NFA of 34, the GCA of 68, the FOPA of 86, ect...
"Stand Your Ground" bills are now being considered in 21 states, replacing the old "duty to retreat" laws. There is much more tolerance for shooting in self-defense and protecting property.
"Duty to retreat" was another legal fiction that completely defies the now defunct "reasonable man" standard. There never should have been a reason to need to restore justification of deadly force in retaliation for initiation of force.
So some states have laws against "assault-style" weapons. Too bad for them. But that's their prerogative under a federated republic. What we no longer have is a federal AWB. And that's good.
No. It isn't just "too bad for them". Military look weapons are those particularly suited to militia use. One of the stated reasons for individual RKBA is so that an armed citizenry can come to their Nations need bearing suitable arms. No, we don't have the hated Brady Bill any more. But the BATFE is constanly revising their definitions absent any authority to do so and driving more manufacturers and dealers out of business. Also, many States are bringing lawsuites against manufacturers and dealers for Third Party malfeasence. The same as bringing a lawsuite against Oldsmobile for Mary Jo's death at the hands of a drunke Ted Kennedy.
BATFE is a licensing and tax collecting agency. Licensing and taxing is not infringement.
It is when you can neither license nor tax the sale of any new manfucatured Class III weaponry. When the standard for prohibited weapons changes from year to year and without further legislation. And yes Bobby, they defunded the department that allows registration of unregistered firearms. A de facto ban. Automatic felony. If that isn't "infringement", then you obviously don't know what the definition means.
Correct. And the person's state constitution protects that right, not the second amendment.
Wrong again. The US Constitution is binding on the States via ARt 6 para 2. I'm getting tired of telling you this simple fact. Without a "Congress shall make no law" qualifier in the Second Amendment, then "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" prohibits it. No matter what your bigoted gun hating judges may have taken it to mean since then.
So what? The federal government has the power under Article I, Section 10 to arm them.
Only if they show up unarmed or with the wrong weapons. Hardly saying that only the FedGov is allowed to arm troops.
No, under the second amendment, Congress can pass any RKBA legislation they wish that does not affect the forming of a state Militia.
Wrong again. "shall not be infringed" still not clear enough for you?
Yes then can and have. The second amendment does not apply to state law. Every single court in every single ruling has stated that.
They have. Yes. This does not mean they had the legal authority to do so. Art 6 para 2. Try reading it some time. Try and wrap that tiny little mind of yours around the whole "laws of any State notwithstanding" part. It means exactly what it says.
I post this link because it would take too much time to actually write myself (I'm lazy tonight). I also suspect, reading from some of the weaseling you've provided in other posts, that you will ignore the article. Read it or don't. I don't care. But there might be others on this thread that would read it and see the militia BS you're posting for what it is. There are several other scholarly works on that same website which also bolster the arguments made by Halbrook in the above work.