Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a San Francisco regulation that requires gun owners to keep their weapons locked up or disabled when stored at home.
By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.
The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.

The challengers said the regulation violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.
Two of the nine-justice court's conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said they would have taken the case.
Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court has outlined to lower courts how to approach Second Amendment cases but the courts that oversaw the San Francisco case "have failed to protect it."


FULL STORY
U.S. top court rejects challenge to San Francisco gun regulation
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,614 Posts
More liberal bullshit from the communist republic of California. I don't know how they fail to understand simple English. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves no room for interpretation. If I lived in San Francisco, I'd do whatever the heck I want to in my own home.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,082 Posts
US Constitution said:
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.
At the time of ratification, this wording very clearly gives the Several States the right to regulate (train) their own militias. In fact, even today this is a true statement even though none of the Several States does so. The National Guard is actually part of the US Federal Department of Defense.

US Constitution said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This amendment is the forgotten amendment - it prohibits the Federal Government from just assuming more powers.

[hr][/hr]
The first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution were explicitly added to restrict the power of the Federal Government. Since the law in question is a city statute, the only real question is does the State of California allow political sub-units (Cities, counties, etc) to proscribe their own gun laws. Therefore the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and could not overturn San Francisco except if they felt that SF's law contradicted California law or Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I'm glad I live in GA. Except for the DA carrying the AR through the airport... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The real problen is the government has trained the sheeple into thinking that anyone with a firearm is going to kill someone with it. Take our schools for example our children today aren't even allowed to draw a picture of a firearm or eat a sandwich into the shape of a firearm without severe consequences.
Wasn't it Joseph Stalin that once said if you want to change society teach the children?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
At the time of ratification, this wording very clearly gives the Several States the right to regulate (train) their own militias. In fact, even today this is a true statement even though none of the Several States does so. The National Guard is actually part of the US Federal Department of Defense.
The Texas State Guard is one such militia.

I did find it humorous that Gov. Abbott appointed the State Guard to "observe and protect us from the Federal Government Jade Helm takeover."

Yeah....those State Guard boys vs. SEALs/Delta/Force Recon....that'll end well. :laugh:

The whole gun thing is - well, for lack of better words, a double edged sword. Upstanding, law abiding citizens should be able to own and have in their possession, a firearm. But there are still people who are not mentally fit to own firearms.
 

·
Conservative Acoustic Foam
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
I know right? So a 4 year old wants to exercise his freedom to shoot his 10 month old sister in the face. That should be his right! Stupid "regulations".

And obviously a city ordinance designed to hold people accountable when their children are simply freedoming up a school is the same thing as taking all our guns.

They should focus on more important things, like regulating the right to vote and making sure everyone is judged solely based on the Christian standard.

'Murika
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,614 Posts
At the time of ratification, this wording very clearly gives the Several States the right to regulate (train) their own militias. In fact, even today this is a true statement even though none of the Several States does so. The National Guard is actually part of the US Federal Department of Defense.



This amendment is the forgotten amendment - it prohibits the Federal Government from just assuming more powers.

[HR][/HR]
The first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution were explicitly added to restrict the power of the Federal Government. Since the law in question is a city statute, the only real question is does the State of California allow political sub-units (Cities, counties, etc) to proscribe their own gun laws. Therefore the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and could not overturn San Francisco except if they felt that SF's law contradicted California law or Constitution.
The problem is that what the constitution says in this case is not relevant. As noted in my signature,

...the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the Second Amendment...the Bill of Rights is a reminder to the government, not [an] authorization...
The Supreme court also ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self defense.

So we have the right to keep guns, and the right to keep them for self defense (not just as part of a militia), and that right exists independently of the Constitution. This, ruled by the Supreme Court, which is shameful to say the least since it should have never been a question to begin with.

In 2014, the 9th circuit court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside the home, which created a split between rulings of circuit courts that the US Supreme Court in 2014 refused to hear. In 2014, the 7th circuit court also ruled Illinois' ban on the carry of weapons outside the home as unconstitutional. Here's the amazing part of this ruling. In the draconian Chicago machine, Illinois decided to create legislation to allow for legal concealed carry of weapons instead of appealing the case to the Supreme Court.

Since we have the right to keep and bear arms, and we have that right for self defense, and that right exists independently of the 2nd amendment, then where does a municipality have the authority to dictate how you are to keep those weapons, and how can they possibly enforce that without violating our right against unwarranted search and seizure?

With regard to the militia clause, Scalia writes in DC vs Heller,

simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.
The former militia clause does not limit the latter; it simply provides one reason as to why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
I own firearms. But I understand the responsibility that comes with that.

I do not feel that some Americans understand those responsibilities.

If you get road rage because someone is hogging the left lane at or below the posted speed limit, firearm ownership is not for you. Sure, I get annoyed by the left lane bandits, but I do not wish to cause them or their vehicle harm.

Many people insert themselves into a situation because they feel empowered with some sense of authority because they have a firearm. If you did not have the intestinal fortitude without the weapon, you should not have a weapon.

Some people can't just walk away. Someone being a jerk and calling you names does not mean you have to escalate the situation.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,614 Posts
I know right? So a 4 year old wants to exercise his freedom to shoot his 10 month old sister in the face. That should be his right! Stupid "regulations".

And obviously a city ordinance designed to hold people accountable when their children are simply freedoming up a school is the same thing as taking all our guns.

They should focus on more important things, like regulating the right to vote and making sure everyone is judged solely based on the Christian standard.

'Murika
What are you going on about? What right does a 4 year old have to murder his sister, by any method? Where was this right even implied? Nobody has the right to take someone else's life.

When you are dealing with politicians who openly state that they would confiscate all guns if they could, and California in particular has engaged in confiscation measures, then yes, city ordinances restricting gun ownership does lead to that. You must not have studied gun laws in the US in the last 80 years. If you want to eliminate the right of the people, you don't do it all at once because the people will not allow it. You chip away at it one piece at a time until the whole bounder turns to gravel. Until Clinton came around, we were able to purchase fully automatic machine guns with a class 3 license. Prior to 1934, war veterans brought back fully automatic machine guns as war trophies. 26-pound behemoths. The Sears catalog sold Thompson machine guns as well as others. Nobody cared. Why?

It has been a slow decline since then, and always fueled either by the government's need to sustain its size or knee jerk reactions to violence. Re: Brady laws. School shootings happen in "gun free zones" now. We have quite literally legislated our way into violence by creating soft targets for criminals, only so we can further justify more bad legislation.

As for the "right" to vote, restricting the privilege to vote only to people who can at prove their citizenship should be a given. Is that a "Christian standard?"
 

·
Conservative Acoustic Foam
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
What are you going on about? What right does a 4 year old have to murder his sister, by any method? Where was this right even implied? Nobody has the right to take someone else's life.
I live in the Gunshine state. Accidental shootings by children who get ahold of an armed firearm are so common now the don't even make the front page down here. Nobody gets prosecuted. We just chock up the loss of life as an acceptable by-product of the perversion of the 2nd Amendment that the NRA has paid handsomely (and profits enormously) for and sold to the paranoid and fearful.
city ordinances restricting gun ownership does lead to that. You must not have studied gun laws in the US in the last 80 years. If you want to eliminate the right of the people, you don't do it all at once because the people will not allow it. You chip away at it one piece at a time until the whole bounder turns to gravel.
Let me check on that again...nope. Nowhere in there is a single restriction of the right to own or bear arms. It's convenient to wrap everything in a little bow and call it an infringement of rights, but as SCOTUS obviously agreed by not taking this up, this is not the case. The saddest part of it all is that Chicken Little is so quick to scream "The 2nd amendment is falling" when something serious comes along it get lost in the white noise of manufactured outrage.
Until Clinton came around, we were able to purchase fully automatic machine guns with a class 3 license.
Ah yes, the Firearm Owners Protection Act, supported by gun rights advocates, which banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles not already registered before the law was signed....by Ronald Reagan.
As for the "right" to vote, restricting the privilege to vote only to people who can at prove their citizenship should be a given. Is that a "Christian standard?"
I adore that retort. The same breath that just got done screaming about background checks for purchasing assault rifles being an infringement on our rights quietly agrees that it's ok now.

I was not amending secularity to the issue of voting rights. I meant them as separate oppressive acts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,918 Posts
Locking up your guns will not protect children. I grew up in Wisconsin and my parents ALWAYS left all but the BB gun locked in a safe or with a trigger lock installed. Having two teenage boys in the home it didn't take long for us to figure out how to disable the trigger lock and go though my parents paperwork to find the safes code(which we then conveniently put on a piece of tape on the back of the safe).

Every gun in our home was used by us unsupervised anytime we were left alone, those locks just slowed us down a few minutes. Kinda makes me feel like laws requiring locks and safes are pointless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
My two cents on gun control, America is too far gone to institute strict gun control. What I mean by this is that we have been able to own guns freely for far to long. It is a freedom that we have the right to. I am a gun owner. I am a safe gun owner. I own 3 rifles and a hand gun, all of which are locked up. My 4 year old son knows what a gun is. Makes no difference what type it is. He knows how to shoulder them, and before long I will be training him how to shoot them. Yet at this point in time he has no access to them. My hand gun is locked up in a quick access case right under my bed. The accidental deaths are horrible and I do not believe that they should go unpunished. If you are going to own a gun you should understand the risks and responsibilities that come along with it. That means keeping them locked up, keeping them out of reach of children, storing them unloaded, teaching children about them even from an early age, and using common sense. I believe that if a child shoots another child on accident then it is the parents fault for not properly storing them or training their children.

If you attempt to take the guns away from the people the people will rebel. Gun owners who are responsible should not be punished. The argument is that if you make guns illegal or put stricter regulations on them it will get them off the streets. How has that worked for drugs? Seems to have worked out great, right? If you take guns away you are removing them from the people who would do good with them. Not go out and mindlessly kill people. Those people already have guns. You take them away from responsible owners its not going to change the fact that criminals have them. Tracking down every gun in America is impossible.

It is our right to own and carry. Yes, people should be trained in some sort of way. In Ohio for instance a bill was proposed that would allow you to buy a hand gun and start to carry it concealed that day. This is ridiculous. Even with the training I have had in handling weapons in the Army I will gladly go through the proper classes required to get my concealed carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Firearms, knives, rope or rubber hose, it matters not the method to commit crime. Evidently the laws are not strict enough for committing said crimes. With that said there will always be a few no matter how strict a law that think raping, robbing, looting and pillaging one another is acceptable conduct.
Do we ban budweiser to reduce drunk driving or ban automobiles? Get it yet?
Firearms have two enemies, rust and politicians.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,614 Posts
I live in the Gunshine state. Accidental shootings by children who get ahold of an armed firearm are so common now the don't even make the front page down here. Nobody gets prosecuted. We just chock up the loss of life as an acceptable by-product of the perversion of the 2nd Amendment that the NRA has paid handsomely (and profits enormously) for and sold to the paranoid and fearful.

Let me check on that again...nope. Nowhere in there is a single restriction of the right to own or bear arms. It's convenient to wrap everything in a little bow and call it an infringement of rights, but as SCOTUS obviously agreed by not taking this up, this is not the case. The saddest part of it all is that Chicken Little is so quick to scream "The 2nd amendment is falling" when something serious comes along it get lost in the white noise of manufactured outrage.

Ah yes, the Firearm Owners Protection Act, supported by gun rights advocates, which banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles not already registered before the law was signed....by Ronald Reagan.

I adore that retort. The same breath that just got done screaming about background checks for purchasing assault rifles being an infringement on our rights quietly agrees that it's ok now.

I was not amending secularity to the issue of voting rights. I meant them as separate oppressive acts.
Accidental shootings are not the cause of the gun and you know it. Accidental shooting is the cause of negligent parents who haven't taught their children to respect and properly handle firearms. They used to teach that in school. Kids weren't as stupid back then. If you're blaming 2nd amendment proponents for this, you're delusional. You don't understand the fundamental concept of root cause analysis.

Nobody will blanket restrict firearms. That doesn't mean they won't try. Remember January 2013? The point is that Rome didn't crumble in a day. Where do you draw the line between chipping away at rights and enacting effective legislation? Locking up my firearms makes it more difficult for ME to get to them and discourages the ownership of firearms by adding an unnecessary expense. I have to pay for my gun, my holster, my belt, my ammo, and my training, and now I have to pay for a gun safe for no reason other than a politician thinks it will make someone safer. Its like Illinois' conceal carry law requiring 16 hours of expensive training to deter low income families from exercising their rights. The training and license cost more than the gun itself.

I'm not concerned who supported the firearms "protection" act. It is an assault on the 2nd amendment's most fundamental purpose. How many crimes have been committed by owners of legally owned fully automatic rifles since 1934?

"As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep.*William J. Hughes*(D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, which modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns, specifically to amend*18 U.S.C.*§*922*to add subsection (o):"

Of course it was a Democrat. It always is. Minor detail you neglected to mention. If that isn't a blatant attack on the 2nd amendment I don't know what is.

I feel sorry for gun owning Democrats.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
At the time of ratification, this wording very clearly gives the Several States the right to regulate (train) their own militias. In fact, even today this is a true statement even though none of the Several States does so. The National Guard is actually part of the US Federal Department of Defense.
Technically, this interpretation is not correct. Understandable, considering the misinformation out there, for various reasons.

The Founding Fathers were quite clear on who they considered the militia, and that is the People. The "well regulated" part simply means to be in proper functioning order. The Founding Fathers were worried about standing armies, even of their own country, and considered the People the best defense against the abuse of such a standing army. This is why they demanded that there should be no infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.

"Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29: ...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

Failure to understand our Founding Fathers and our country's history means you will never understand the 2nd Amendment and it's intended purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
My two cents on gun control, America is too far gone to institute strict gun control. What I mean by this is that we have been able to own guns freely for far to long. It is a freedom that we have the right to. I am a gun owner. I am a safe gun owner....
:th_dblthumb2:
Americans are a unique breed. If something is perceived as a freedom, you can not take it away from us.

I've had the argument 100 times. Where jackbooted government types are "gurna take er guhrns"

It might work in one town. Maybe two. By the third, there will be resistance. By the 4th organized resistance. Try it in a state like Oklahoma or Texas? Forget it. They'll be shooting back with .338 Lapua, .300 WinMag, .444 Marlin.....they're going to penetrate body armor
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top