Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 83
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)Page 5 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
fz,

Your point about criminal possession is sound. Still, had Mr. Martin done it right, the only charge against him that would have stuck was the illegal possession charge. If the shooting had been righteous, public opinion would have ensured that his sentence was suspended, and might have even sparked a revival of the debate in England.

BTW, I've lived in CA since I was 9.

Laws that create black markets generally don't accomplish the good that was intended. The means are the ends.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 84
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 6:36:57 AM
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 85
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 7:08:13 AM
Would that still be true if a child of yours got killed in a drive-by shooting?

These are real situations that gun-banners fear, and there isn't much liberty for those who live in neighborhoods ravaged by gangs.

Of course, one way to significantly reduce the risk of such shootings is to regulate and tax any product or service that is considered "immoral" regardless of the actual demand. A good answer to the gun banners is to point to the actual conditions that promote violence, rather than banning the means.

Anyone who is both a supporter of 2nd Amendment freedom and the War on Drugs is, most likely, a dangerous fool.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 86
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 10:04:29 AM
Anyone who is both a supporter of 2nd Amendment freedom and the War on Drugs is, most likely, a dangerous fool.


No society can survive long without a consensus that *some* activities are immoral. The question is, which ones? We believe murder, arson, rape, and so on are extremely immoral, mostly because they cause such extreme harm to their victims. And so we make them felony crimes. Activities that cause their victims less harm--e.g. forging checks, vandalizing property--still strike most of us as immoral, so we agree to make them misdemeanor crimes. And we do the same with carrying and using firearms in certain places.

You imply that when enough people want something, it's harder to call it immoral and to outlaw it. I think that's true. When most people agreed that fornication was immoral, it was reasonable to call it that and make it illegal. But when almost no one does, it would be silly to treat it that way. Enough Americans thought alcohol was immoral to prohibit it just after WWI. I don't know that they considered it any less immoral by the early 1930's, but they no longer wanted it to be strictly illegal throughout the U.S.

I think we're in a similar position now as to drugs. A heroin addict isn't really a willing consumer who wants to buy a product. That's why drug trafficking is immoral--the drugs themselves often make their consumers slaves to their suppliers. In that way, and by making users less productive, destroying families, and so on, drugs directly cause immense social harm.

Repealing criminal laws against drugs would make them cheap. That would eliminate most of their main indirect cost--the crimes committed to get money to buy them. But because decriminalization would also probably create many new victims of drugs, who knows if it would reduce the total harm they cause?

Not to go completely off topic, I'll add that I have some interesting info on several recent 2d Amendment cases. If anyone's interested, I'll get it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 87
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 11:18:24 AM
No society can survive long without a consensus that *some* activities are immoral.


We already have a consensus regarding legally-enforceable morality, or at least the basis for determining it. It is not about preventing social harm--laudable though that goal seems to most liberals--it is about protecting individual rights.

If an activity violates the rights of another person, we are entitled to make laws against it. Otherwise, we are not. For activities that we consider immoral, freedom of association (e.g., the refusal to do so on grounds of immorality) is sufficient in response--provided that we do not deny anyone equal access to public accommodations. They can work, they can shop, they can purchase. If no one says one word more to them than is strictly necessary to transact business, it is what it is.

In the cigar-smoking gentleman story you told, the only reason it was OK to prohibit smoking in the park was to abate the nuisance created by the smoke for other park users. The fact that the gentleman was courting cancer is between him and the seller, unless of course the seller balks and he must use publicly funded health care. At that point, those of us who must pay for that care are entitled to recompense from the seller. So why not just collect the health-care premium up front from the user as part of the cost of the product?

Which would be more costly: enforcing the current black market, constantly cleaning up after the gangs, and incarcerating nonviolent dealers for extended periods? Or, treating drug dependency as a public health matter by providing treatment that is financed through taxation of the legal, regulated trade?

A good deal of the social harm you cite is the direct result of criminalization. When a drug is _illegal,_ addicts have no legal recourse for dealing with unscrupulous suppliers. It is that lack of recourse, combined with a lack of legal competition for their business, that reduces them to slavery. When a drug is legal and regulated, they can turn to law enforcement in the same way that someone who is sold a bogus bottle of booze can complain to the ATF (or whatever it's called these days) and expect the culprits to be brought to justice.

Is heroin more deadly in the long run than, say, nicotine? How much harm has that caused and yet we tolerated it, though if you ask any hard-core fundamentalist Christian, they will tell you that it, too, is immoral. Most addicts can remain functional for a very long time regardless of their drugs of choice. As long as they don't screw up, what business is it of ours?

If we agree that we should have the freedom to possess weapons with which to kill each other, then how can we agree not to allow people to possess drugs that directly harm only themselves?

Finally, where is the morality in sacrificing the safety of our fellow citizens so that we can feel righteous?

Yes, please do tell us about those recent 2nd Amendment cases.

 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 88
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 7:34:47 PM
ACE yes I would still believe in the 2nd amendment and that right even if it happened to one of my children, as I have taught them to believe what it is to be an American Citizen, defend the freedoms given to us, and never back down in practicing them. This would not detract from the fact it was a senseless murder, but the cause of preserving liberty and freedom are greater than any single individual. Now don't take this to think I am callous about the issue of a child, but any one shooting at my kids would be hard pressed to get them and not get return fire. All of my kids have been fully trained in the Art of War and some are better than me at it. Now I am not some zealot that that taught them militia crap, but as they grew up and learned to shoot, they were also taught the tactical side of things, offensive and defensive.

Match whats this new 2nd amendment info you got?

As for Thunder and England, now you know why our ancestors left, you have no FINAL RECOURSE against anything your government does if it reverts to total tyranny.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 89
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/16/2009 11:38:55 PM

the only reason it was OK to prohibit smoking in the park was to abate the nuisance created by the smoke for other park users.


I'm not sure what you mean by "OK" here. It's legal, at least so far--but it's far from OK with me. And the very complex law of nuisance is something else altogether. This issue--luckily--doesn't involve it at all.

Municipal governments have what's called the "police power." This has nothing to do with the cops--the word's used in the old sense of "polity." It's the basic power to regulate that any government needs to function. As the courts have always defined it, the police power is limited to things that affect public health, safety, or welfare. It used to include public morals as a fourth category, but the general view is that over the years, this was folded into public welfare. Morality apparently is outdated.

The city fathers and leading lights of Fairville, believing that our bodies are our temples, have decided that tobacco is BAD. (Even more immoral than eating red meat--something aware, evolved Americans just don't do.) After a few Chardonnays, some of them have even said that being moral people themselves, if they believe something's bad, then no one should be allowed to do it. At least not in Fairville.

One of these upright citizens, Flanders, blurted out one day in frustration, "Gosh, I hate smoking as much as anyone in Fairville. But darn it all! We're just a town, not the doggone Supreme Court! We can't just up and tell everyone how to live, like they can! We've got to have a *reason* we can point to. We have to show, somehow, that smoking harms the *public* health, safety, or welfare! Forget safety and welfare. Health, health . . . let's see . . . the *smoker's* health, sure--but how's it harm the *public* health? Unless--wait a minute--what if, somehow, the smoke drifted, and . . . and . . . I've got it! I can't wait to talk to the mayor!"

And soon, the the Fairville City Council adopted a municipal ordinance prohibiting smoking anywhere within city limits. And the old man--that selfish sinner--had enjoyed his last cigar in the park!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 90
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 7:56:10 AM
So what you have is a miniscule amount of less cigarette smoke in the air yet the dozens or hundreds of cars that are still allowed into the green park are quietly emitting their poison. So what really has changed ? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.


Actually, as a result of all that endless rabble-rousing for costly and unnecessary emission controls on cars by those dreaded liberals, the cigar smoker probably emits more toxic fumes and particulates than all of those cars combined. That is certainly true of the guy driving the two-cycle lawn mower.

So do we allow everyone to stick us with the costs of their dirty operations, or do we hold each other accountable for the actual costs that our activities entail?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 91
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 8:01:07 AM

And soon, the the Fairville City Council adopted a municipal ordinance prohibiting smoking anywhere within city limits. And the old man--that selfish sinner--had enjoyed his last cigar in the park!


Well, second-hand smoke is carcinogenic, so they have a rationale. If they are overreaching based on that rationale, that is what elections are for. But if the majority of park users would prefer not to deal with the smoke, should the will of the people prevail or not?

I think you know my answer. Only if some individual's rights would be violated. What right does the smoker have to create a nuisance in the park? BTW, if it was some punk kid playing gangsta rap a high volume, would you also be in favor of scrapping the noise ordinance?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 8:44:53 AM
I think, in my original hypothetical, there were no people within hundreds of yards of the cigar smoker. The whole point is that it's easy to imagine lots of situations--the old man and his dog is just one--where NO one's rights are being violated. Except, of course, the rights of everyone the noble crusade targets. In too many situations, there IS no rational basis for laws like anti-smoking ordinances. But they apply just the same.

All kinds of materials are carcinogens. Should we ban ever other item in Home Depot because someone might break a container, and everyone in the store--and even across town (Heavens!) will inhale a couple atoms of it? Unless it's plutonium, so what? As the Supreme Court's acknowledged, the law's always excepted trivia.

While a law's in force, it's binding on everyone it covers. About the only exception is for someone who violates a law in good faith to challenge its constitutionality in court. So, elections are one cure--and maybe the best one. In theory, at least, we get the governments we deserve. So far, we can still choose to live in cities that allow people to smoke in public. But as these meddling laws get more widespread, it gets harder to escape them by moving.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 93
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 12:38:27 PM

I think, in my original hypothetical, there were no people within hundreds of yards of the cigar smoker. The whole point is that it's easy to imagine lots of situations--the old man and his dog is just one--where NO one's rights are being violated. Except, of course, the rights of everyone the noble crusade targets. In too many situations, there IS no rational basis for laws like anti-smoking ordinances. But they apply just the same.


If his smoke isn't bothering anyone, I see no reason for anyone to bother him, sign or no sign.

Same for the guy who sticks a needle in his arm. Same for consenting adults behind closed doors. Same for the gay couple who want to marry. Same for the Stinger rocket collector who keeps his toys safely secured. Same for anyone engaging in ANY activity that a majority might decide is somehow immoral or disgusting.

If you believe in the market, believe in the market. If you believe in letting people deal with the consequences of their choices (including the choice to get involved with an addict), let them.

If you want to save addicts from themselves at taxpayers expense, would that not be a socialist/statist position?
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 94
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:35:17 PM
Ok Jack I am going to play devils advocate here. What about the right of the owner to have a smoking establishment?
More reasonable than tell someone that has invested their life in their business, would be to put a sign out front that says it is a smoking establishment. Just like TV you have the right to not go in, i don't think anyone should have the right to tell a bar owner how to run his business.
The demonization of all things petty and unhealthy or sin taxes etc. All based on someones morality of the absurd and petty.
The house is burning down and we are edging the lawn.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 95
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:03:49 PM
A] Since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns (District of Columbia v. Heller), there have been about 90 lower federal court case rulings that have interpreted the Heller decision. So far, little has changed, as the rulings have reinforced the illegality of gun ownership by felons, banning machine guns, carrying guns near schools, etc.

The one exception is a part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named after the murdered son of John Walsh, the host of the television show “America’s Most Wanted.” It said that persons accused of child pornography offenses must be prohibited from possessing guns while they await trial. (That violates due process by imposing a punishment before conviction, so it was probably already unconstitutional.) But, post-Heller, two courts have struck down the provision based “… The right to possess a firearm is constitutionally protected…There is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.”

B] But the open question left by Heller is whether the Second Amendment also applies to the states, or whether the amendment is “incorporated” against them. The Supreme Court has said that most (but not all) of the protections of the Bill of Rights are incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
The current consensus among most legal scholars is that incorporation of the Second Amendment is now likely. The Supreme Court has said in some past cases that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government, but a footnote in Heller cast doubt on those decisions. For now, lower courts probably have to follow the older decisions until the Supreme Court says otherwise. But even if the court applies the amendment to the states, most state constitutions already protect an individual right to bear arms.

C] But some liberals spy a chance for shenanigans. They have urged courts to incorporate the Second Amendment in a novel way, one that might help liberal arguments for protecting rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as abortion and gay rights.

In a supporting brief filed in a Chicago case, lawyers for the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, urged the court to bypass the usual way that amendments are applied to the states, through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. (Using that clause to guarantee fundamental rights has always seemed odd, as “due process” would seem to protect only fair procedures, and not subject matter substance.) Another ploy (and the one urged by the center’s brief) is the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” (The virtues of that clause are it makes sense by its terms, and there is some evidence that its framers specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.)

D] When all is said and done, as to gun ownership and conditions, Heller might turn out to be much ado about nothing.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 96
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:27:31 PM
Personally, I'm fine with a bar owner declaring his establishment a smoking zone--so long as there is a clear sign out front and he pays the increased premiums to cover the added cancer risk to himself and his employees.

Sin taxes are supposed to cover the costs of mitigating the negative effects, such as treatment for alcoholism or lung cancer, in the same way that gas taxes are supposed to cover the costs of maintain the roads.

If the sin tax revenues aren't being used for that, then it's election time!

BTW, how do we cover the costs of drug treatment for destitute addicts now? How do we provide support to their families? Oh, that all comes out of the general fund while the drug traffickers continue to profit tax free? And we're also paying the costs of incarceration for all those otherwise functional breadwinners who got hooked and decided to deal rather than steal?

Sounds like a good investment of my tax dollars! NOT!
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 97
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/17/2009 5:52:57 PM
ACE I can see your point. As for taxes, I really doubt any of them are used for what they are intended any more. I sure didn't vote for someone to hand out 700 billion so that New Jersey could build a new boardwalk, that was just replaced 5 years ago.

As I have said before all taxes need a sunset law and a direct spending clause that makes sure it is spent on what it was intended for. Also an across the board law that says if you as a politician use the money for any other reason than its original intent, you go to jail for misappropriation of funds, if it doesn't get used it goes in to a surplus fund to which 50% of the surplus goes back to the people each year.

3 BILLION in highway funds moved to the general funds and wasted, now they want to raise car taxes to fix the roads, Thank you Gray Davis and Arnold.

Sin Taxes go way back to a time before we were worried about who is going to cover costs of the sin, but your point is valid in today's world.

There was a 75 cent sin tax for the use of a hooker in Washington DC when General Hooker was in charge of security in DC. The tax paid for the soldiers that were securing DC. Now thats a sin tax.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 98
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/18/2009 12:19:55 AM
I guarantee you in one hour you will be deceased.


From CO2 poisoning, not from unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carcinogenic particulates. I remember when we used to let the oil refiners put lead in the gas.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 99
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/18/2009 10:48:07 AM
now there is no smoking within 500 feet of a school.


I'm assuming that ordinance only applies to public spaces, and not inside your house. So you should be able to sit on your porch, less than 500 feet from school property, and smoke all you want.

There's always a tug-of-war between state and local laws, on one side, and on the other, the 14th Amendment, which prevents state governments from depriving people of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. A lot of the California Vehicle Code, for example, deprives me of liberty by making it a crime not to stop at red lights. For a minute or two, I'm not free to go where I want. But courts recognize that it's within the state's "police powers" to do that, for the sake of public safety.

The 14th Amendment also applies to cities and counties, because the ordinances they adopt have to both comply with state law, and be authorized by it. What I wonder about an ordinance like the one you mention about smoking near a school is, what's Pasadena's authority for it? Public safety doesn't seem to be an issue, and neither does public welfare. So protecting public health seems to be the reason, as it is for smoking ordinances in Calabasas and other cities.

There are also laws against advertising tobacco on billboards and other signs near schools. The idea, obviously, is not to encourage kids to smoke. But as the students walk home from Anytown High, does it endanger their health just to see the guy across the street having a smoke while he waters his rosebushes? How about that film on WWII the substitute history teacher showed them last week, showing FDR and Churchill both puffing away? Maybe it would have been healthier for those impressionable young minds to watch some footage of their non-smoking, vegetarian contemporary, Hitler, instead.

The health rationale for some of these laws is such a stretch that it seems to deprive people of a liberty--the freedom to smoke--arbitrarily. And if a rule's arbitrary, it's not law. All these same considerations are going to be even more important if the Court holds that the 2d Amendment applies to the states. Unlike the right to smoke, the Court's likely to consider the right to keep and bear arms "fundamental."
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 100
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/18/2009 5:11:49 PM
Well, it was a hypothetical to begin with, a way to illustrate how silly these "morally protective" laws can get. Of course they can, and do, especially when legislators aren't clear on the concept of what laws are for.

Is prohibing smoking in an otherwise empy park a silly thing to do? Of course it is.

Laws are not for enforcing moral guidelines. They are for protecting peoples' rights. And that is all they are for. Laws that unduly restrict the free exercise of individual rights are unconscionable, regardless of the moral rationale that is claimed for them.

How can I say that and still claim to be a liberal?

Well, the people have the right, through the power of taxation that they have given to their representatives, to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. If they choose to do so by providing funding for social programs that are seen as necessary to those ends, that is also their right. Near as I can tell, no one's rights are violated when taxes are duly levied and spent according to law. I might not like how much is levied or how some of those monies are spent, but that is what elections are for.

The wisdom and results of specific social-welfare programs are always subject to debate, but not the authority of the government to fund and administer them. As with capital projects, it would probably be better for private agencies to compete for contracts to provide most social services according to government specs and policies. Why we're OK with for-profits handling capital and defense projects but not social programs is a bit baffling to me. It' is, no doubt, another manifestation of that "moral conservatism" that arbitrarily tolerates some debilitating drugs (alcohol, nicotine) but not others. Is it not?

The imperative to dictate laws on grounds of morality is the real threat to 2nd Amendment rights. If you want to protect your right to bear, then you cannot also favor other laws that dictate morality at the expense of individual rights. You cannot both favor the free market and support the War on Drugs. If we want to safeguard our rights, then it is that imperative itself that we must eternally guard against.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 101
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/18/2009 5:15:47 PM
Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive Federal Database
-- And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward this effort!



Tuesday, June 16, 2009

At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.

It won't be pretty for your pocket book... OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about.

At the center of the plan is what's called a "universal mandate." What this means is that you -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.

If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost. And, if the employer's contribution is too large, you will be fired.

If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and, ultimately, put you in prison.

How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy's not saying.

The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy's latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW.

This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance, the average family policy is currently $12,700. "So," proclaims Teddy, "everyone's going to get a subsidy to pay for this." There's going to be a "chicken in every pot," and no one's going to have to pay for it.

Yeah, right. If you're a welfare mother, the government will pay for your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it -- the first time -- by taxing employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a "working Joe" your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic fraction of the cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy.

Okay, all of this sounds ominous... but why is this a gun issue?

The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every TeddyCare policy -- which you will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment.

Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database.

So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun collection? That would be in the federal database.

Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database.

Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the database.

Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection? That's in there too.

And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.

When we say "everyone," we don't mean quite everyone.

Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his TeddyCare mandate.

Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don't want you to hear about the details until after the bill is passed. That's why they're trying to slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone's had a chance to read or debate it.

In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol Hill without even a bill number.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 102
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/25/2009 6:55:41 PM

2nd amendment or not, everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property from violation and damage, period.


You have a legal right to use reasonable force to protect your own life, the life of another, or your property. For the first two purposes, even deadly force may be reasonable in some circumstances. But to protect property, it NEVER is reasonable. If someone were trespassing on your land and you let them know it and told them to leave, you could legally fire your shotgun in their direction if they refused. I doubt they'd keep refusing after that.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 103
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/25/2009 8:14:13 PM
Motor City Mad Man

http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 104
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 9/22/2009 11:20:10 PM
As you may know, the California State Legislature recently passed legislation, AB 962, mandating that all retail handgun ammunition sales be made “face-to-face.” This would prohibit online or mail purchases of ammunition. It would also require that all buyers of ammunition fill out registration paperwork and be fingerprinted at the point of purchase. The bill has been sent to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk, and he is now deciding whether to veto it or sign it into law.
While AB 962 is a state bill, I am very concerned about the impact of this legislation on our Second Amendment rights, and I believe it merits attention by federal elected officials because if enacted it would disrupt interstate commerce, prevent Californians from participating in a federal marksmanship program, and infringe on Californians’ constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. As such, and as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I wrote and circulated among the other members of the California delegation a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger, signed by thirteen U.S. Representatives from California, urging him to veto this bill.
I believe it is incredibly unfortunate that the state legislature decided to resurrect a failed federal ammunition registration program at the state level. While proponents believe this type of program will prevent ammunition from reaching the hands of criminals, history has already demonstrated that it is not successful in preventing criminals from breaking federal or state laws and only serves to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. I urge Governor Schwarzenegger to stand up for Second Amendment rights and will continue to fight in Congress to protect this cherished right.
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 105
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 10/22/2009 9:21:29 PM

Over the years I have asked acquaintances of mine in the police force about this and they have agreed. For those people not used to guns, pulling the trigger is not always the easiest thing especially when you are in a problem situation. I have a feeling that if you call up your local law enforcement they will be able to tell you a few stories about home invaders taking the gun from the owner.


Owning a weapon without the proper training is the stupidist thing I've ever heard of. Guns are a big responsibility and one needs to be properly trained.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 10/23/2009 9:22:27 PM
they think "dumb Americans" are running around shooting eachother.


Gosh, if only we were all smart and sophisticated like those Europeans! You know--Hitler, Mussolini, and all that. They sure didn't need any guns.

You're right about shooting each other--but the problem is they never quite seem to finish the job. There are still some Americans running around who are so dumb they barely even know there is a 2d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, let alone understand what it means.

 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 107
NO victory for the rights of gun owners
Posted: 6/7/2010 9:25:20 AM
With all the "UN Treaty" threads circulating these days, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out a more relevant threat to Second Amendment rights via international treaties.

1997 CIFTA Treaty.

A little background, in 1997, then President Bill Clinton signed a treaty sponsored by the Organization of American States. It is a small arms control treaty that is known by its Spanish acronym - CIFTA. However, neither President Clinton nor President Bush ever presented the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Recently, President Obama has called on the Senate to ratify the CIFTA treaty and has made it one of its 17 "priority" treaties in 2009 (where it went nowhere due to other legislative battles and NRA opposition).

Recent Obama appointee Harold Koh not only expressed support for the treaty, he has also argued for it as a basis for domestic regulation and suggested that reservations from it lack legal validity (a "reservation" in international treaty is basically the equivalent of "Well, we're not going to do that part of the treaty)

The possible effects of the treaty on your First and Second Amendment rights (the treaty criminalizes some forms of speech as well) and the impact of Heller and other Supreme Court decisions on the treaty.

Some important things from the treaty:

1. Mandatory creation of a domestic small arms licensing system
2. Broadens the definition of "manufacture" to include things like assembling an AR15 upper, switching uppers, reloading ammunition, etc.
3. Prohibits police departments or military from selling surplus small arms equipment to civilians
4. Broadens the range of firearms related accessories that require an import/export license (no more sending slings or magazines to your buddy in Iraq)
5. Model legislation proposed by OAS calls for gun and ammunition registry
6. Extends record keeping time to 30 years and calls for signatory nations to share such information between themselves.
7. Attempts to criminalize "counseling" others to arm themselves or in other ways violate the treaty.
8. Could potentially create private rights in anti-gun foundations to sue the United States under this convention.

To the best of my knowledge, the Senate has not yet taken up President Obama on this issue and there appears to be little likelihood that they will with Sen. Harry Reid as majority leader. It also appears that there are not the 2/3 votes necessary to ratify such a controversial treaty, let alone to start enacting even a fraction of the laws it proposes. This as well and argues that the real purpose in ratifying the treaty is to create additional pressure for gun control by arguing that the U.S. is not living up to its international treaty obligations. It would also give administrative agencies a big license to "reinterpret" existing regulations in light of the obligations created by the treaty.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)