ObamaCare Provision May Forbid Gun And Ammo Registration!

[jwalz]

Don't forget the rust proofing.

Yup Iv been doing my fair share of googling :thumbup:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

Does not infringe does NOT mean can not regulate. That has been decided in case law a thousand times over.

And just because it says arms, again it does not mean they can not regulate a maximum number if they choose.

Guys if case is closed than how has the government been regulating fully automatic weapons for longer than any of you have been alive??

Again, I'm sorry with the way things are going but don't confuse your desires or opinions with actual constitutional law. Not Antigun just pro truth and maybe took one too many constitutional law courses way back when so am a bit of a stickler for accuracy and truth. But you don't have to hate me I'm not a lawyer!! And i definitely think almost all gov folks are useless bureaucrats.

 

[dieselram94]

Restrictive laws are an infringement....

Does not infringe does NOT mean can not regulate. That has been decided in case law a thousand times over.

And just because it says arms, again it does not mean they can not regulate a maximum number if they choose.

Guys if case is closed than how has the government been regulating fully automatic weapons for longer than any of you have been alive??

Again, I'm sorry with the way things are going but don't confuse your desires or opinions with actual constitutional law. Not Antigun just pro truth and maybe took one too many constitutional law courses way back when so am a bit of a stickler for accuracy and truth. But you don't have to hate me I'm not a lawyer!! And i definitely think almost all gov folks are useless bureaucrats.

 

[0121stockpicker]

When the BoRs were written no one knew what an automatic weapon was - correct. Then in the twenties cheap autos started to become easily available. If my memory serves me right the tommy was marketed to ranchers for home defense - kid you not. The government decided that even though people had the "right to own guns" that it definitely was not in societies best interest to have automatic weapons in the hands of too many people. They then regulated those guns. Was this illegal or unconstitutional for the government to do?? Obviously not.

If they believe that ceramic guns, armor piecing bullets, thirty round mags, calibers greater than 50 or owning more than 100 guns should be regulated - they legally can of course. Again, just because you don't like it, it does not make it unconstitutional.

 

[jwalz]

Far from a lawyer and this all sounds legit but imo stay away from the gun laws they are fine the way they are ( as far as what I can own and how much) and go after the for lack of a better word bad people that don't know how to handle, own, operate, or teach there youngins how to use them.
Again I was brought up around an arsenal and at no time did I have the opportunity to go near a gun with out adult supervision. And if it was even a thought (which it wasn't) the long arm of the law (my father) wA's gonna reach out and get me. If ya know what I mean. I'm sorry but if you own you need to be responsible enough to own .. guns can kill but it's the people that press the trigger

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Restrictive laws are an infringement....

Now your getting the beauty of our constitution and the body of law surrounding it. It's all opinion on definition and meaning. That's why this stuff has been debated daily since the beginning of our country.

Remember bill Clinton's - "depends on your definition of 'is'".

Best to all - i always enjoy a good discussion. If the thread had been Antigun, I would have taken the other side!!

 

[Chadeaux]

Does not infringe does NOT mean can not regulate. That has been decided in case law a thousand times over.

Websters defines infringe as: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To regulate is to encroach on the rights of another, therefore it is infringement.

The problem is, when it started back in the 1960's I heard all the arguments about how this would end up but as a kid I didn't pay it much attention. Just a bunch of old codgers who were scared of change.

Now I'm the old codger . . . and I'll be damned if they weren't telling the truth. Them old guys were smarter than I gave them credit for.

When I was a kid, there was a time that even as a minor I could walk into Western Auto and buy a shotgun or long gun with only my parents' verbal permission (and the cash). My father could buy a pistol without having to produce a drivers license for anything other than proof that he was over 21. When he was growing up in the 1930's, he said that he could buy whatever he wanted so long as he had the money.

When you look at it that way, you could say the government has been infringing on the Second Amendment for a long time.

It isn't are they or have they, but rather HOW MUCH have they infringed upon it.

 

[Red James Cash]

The thompson smg was definitely not a cheap gun to buy when it was first marketed.It only became illegal to own after the Purple gangs claim to fame to be the first prohibition era gang to use it.See once again its the citizen to suffer from criminal activity.Did the laws prevent prohibition era gangsters from having them,NO.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The thompson smg was definitely not a cheap gun to buy when it was first marketed.It only became illegal to own after the Purple gangs claim to fame to be the first prohibition era gang to use it.See once again its the citizen to suffer from criminal activity.Did the laws prevent prohibition era gangsters from having them,NO.

Again, no one says it worked as intended. But it was constitutional and was legal to restrict automatic weapons. Not arguing if the laws are "good" or "bad", but constitution or unconstitutional. Again many of you are confusing your beliefs about good or bad with what's constitutionally legit or not. Thanks for backing up that point. And mail ordering guns now illegal - I think that was 68. And the Brady bill of course.

Just because a law is passed legally does not mean its a good one. Sometimes even the gov realizes that - look at the banning and relegalization of alchohol!! Didn't take too long for them to figure out that they screwed up!!

 

[Red James Cash]

Ahhh yes the good old brady billBanning guns and mags that had nothing to do with what reagen and brady were shot with.Reagen and Brady were shot with a .22 revolver,how many .22 revolvers were banned?

look at the banning and relegalization of alchohol!! Didn't take too long for them to figure out that they screwed up!!

13 years isnt a long time?Maybe they should have a little bit of common sense and actually think before passing laws.For every action there is a reaction.Whats the usual reaction for passing stupid gun laws,disarming citizens while the criminal retains his weapon.

 

[Dano Sverige]

Websters defines infringe as: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To regulate is to encroach on the rights of another, therefore it is infringement.

The problem is, when it started back in the 1960's I heard all the arguments about how this would end up but as a kid I didn't pay it much attention. Just a bunch of old codgers who were scared of change.

Now I'm the old codger . . . and I'll be damned if they weren't telling the truth. Them old guys were smarter than I gave them credit for.

When I was a kid, there was a time that even as a minor I could walk into Western Auto and buy a shotgun or long gun with only my parents' verbal permission (and the cash). My father could buy a pistol without having to produce a drivers license for anything other than proof that he was over 21. When he was growing up in the 1930's, he said that he could buy whatever he wanted so long as he had the money.

When you look at it that way, you could say the government has been infringing on the Second Amendment for a long time.

It isn't are they or have they, but rather HOW MUCH have they infringed upon it.

Mr Webster would have been on Obama's side. He was another who loved to re-write things to suit himself!

 

[nsdq]

here is what gun control should be ,,, use two hands aim fire repeat as needed

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Like the WILD WEST or ROARING 20's ALL over again... Deja Vu?

 

[dieselram94]

Beats the future when we all bow down to Obama and the U.N.

Like the WILD WEST or ROARING 20's ALL over again... Deja Vu?

 

[truckinbutch]

Like the WILD WEST or ROARING 20's ALL over again... Deja Vu?

Ya got any recent evidence to back up such a radical statement . Give us some examples of LEGALLY armed citizens going 'WILD WEST' . Emotional 'what if ' scenarios aren't going to get you any popcorn here , scooter .

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Was simply responding to someone who stated that amending the constitution was somehow not constitutional or not a part of our governmental system.

And yes any "parliamentary maneuvers" such as filibusters, executive orders, etc are part of the process. I'm not saying I like it, but lets be clear about the difference between what we don't like - and what is illegal or unconstitutional etc. it makes the discussion completely unfactual. Not that everyone needs to become an expert in constitutional law, but shooting from the hip on it isn't the right thing to do either.

This is the second amendment ...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything that says you can own an unlimited number of guns or any type of guns or you can't be required to be fingerprinted or have a background check. Am I missing something. Again, I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm also for discussing facts.

You don't see anything that says we can own unlimited number of guns, you ask "are you missing something" Yes your overlooking the word infridgement. The 2ND amedment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (notice it is plural) shall not be infringed (notice the word infringed) ".

What does the word "infringed" mean? "Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on". In other words the government can not act to limit, undermine or encroach on the right of its law abiding citizens to be able to own arms............ I have no problem at all with our government practicing gun control on the criminals in this country.... Pass a law requiring them to register their weapons, be finger printed and get a license. I wonder why they don't? Could it be because criminals want abide by that law?

New restrictions on what we already can legally own per supreme court is more infringement....Saying we will be required to be fingerprinted and register the current weapons we own is more infringment....The 2nd amendment is to guarantee the citizens can protect theirselves AND resist tyranny in the government if and when it ever comes, there are plenty of writtings from the men who wrote the constitution and influenced those who wrote it to show and support exactly why the 2nd amendment was written and was put in our Constitution.....


First amendment says nothing about the internet, does that mean the government can say no free speech on internet since constitution says nothing about internet? The 2nd amendment is what guarantees the other amendments will always be there.....................

 

[dieselram94]

Well said TH, but I must point out, they are trying to regulate the internet and take away free speech on it as well. I guess you could say they are equal opportunity amendment destroyers.

 

[Red James Cash]

Well said TH, but I must point out, they are trying to regulate the internet and take away free speech on it as well. I guess you could say they are equal opportunity amendment destroyers.

Things happen in threes so the 1st and the 2nd have to follow the 4th goodbye.