Ct. Citizens Defense League

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by BETH, Jun 22, 2011.

  1. Hatch

    Hatch Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    DD please keep in mind I'm not trying to be combative, but I think there's a lot of problems with what your saying...

    FBI background check:
    should be null and void, it should be a states rights issue. The FED should have absolutely ZERO power here. You're talking about the red tape and BS you have gone through instead of the removal of that BS.

    Gun Permit: I just choked down some vomit... there shouldnt be such a thing. If states like Mass want to require one, we could let all the hippies move there and be happy in their little nirvana bliss.

    Served in the Military: OOHRAH! me too! I dont know how much that should buy us as a default, personally, my vote is still out on that. I like that CA allows exceptions for active duty to defeat the ban on assault weapons for active duty when they move here, obviously I'd really like all of those state laws stricken from the books entirely!

    I should have the right to carry a gun everywhere I go: No sir. You don't have or deserve that right. There was a big thing about changing "these United States" into "The United States" back about when Lincoln was ending the Civil War/War between the States and like I said before, neither the liberals or us can have it both ways. States Rights. Now, if you choose to do business in a state like MA and know in advance you can not even bring a firearm into their state, then why would you want to? and those who think like us would hopefully start moving the hell out of there! But to get back to it, NO. not only NO but HELL NO. Your "national" I can carry anywhere I want can just as easily be turned into "national" You cant carry any gun, anywhere, and I think that pretty much sets things in motion nobody wants to see.

    You need to understand the exact legal "interpretations" of the 10 Amendments and the Constitution to understand that they can say one thing, but it only applies in certain cases.

    and like I pointed out in the very beginning, please dont get upset with me, I'm not against your right to carry, but I can tell you from my very limited understanding of the legal system, this is NOT how it works, nor is it how we WANT it to work!
  2. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,942
    Location:
    North Florida
    If you read my post, I clearly say that all of these checks and licences are against the 2nd ammendment. But are still a requirement none the less. And, I do have the right to carry anywhere I go. Just the anti-2nd ammend laws that stop me. I also say that I refuse to enter a state or a business that doesnt allow me to carry. But, I still have the right. Doesnt matter how you read it.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2011
  3. Hatch

    Hatch Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    I read your post. I think you're mistaking what is allowed by the bill of rights, and what is protected by the power of the states.

    The 2A does not apply. you have to understand that very basic concept in order to understand that fundamental building block in what is wrong with trying to take away the legal power of others.

    Quite bluntly... the 2A does not protect your carry in all states, and it shouldn't. That's what protects "us" from some whacko state like CA or MA passing a law that says "no guns ever" and making that national law whenever their "registered no guns" citizen travels through another state.

    Please... stop and think. We cant have it both ways. Neither can they. That is one of the benefits of the system.

    Once again... (under current interpretation of the law) the 2A does not apply to your argument. AT ALL.
  4. Alpo

    Alpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,596
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I'm glad you stuck in "under current interpretation of the law", because the current interpretation is wrong.

    The First says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...:". Congress shall make no law. That means that Congress can't decide that the US will be a Catholic country. California, however, can. There is no law denying California from establishing a State Religion.

    The Second, however, does not say "Congress shall make no law infringing...". It says the right "...shall not be infringed". That means anybody. That means the United States, that means the State of Rhode Island, that means Bay County Florida, that means Houston Texas. Nobody can infringe on that right.

    The Fourth says we can't be searched without a warrant. I've never seen the argument that says that only applies to the FBI. Since it's a FEDERAL law it only affects FEDERAL cops, and Oklahoma cops can search anybody they want to at any time.

    I've never seen anyone suggest that you can only be free from self-incrimination in a FEDERAL court, and if they ask you if you did the crime, in Indiana state court, you have to answer.

    I don't see how anyone can decide that the states have any power to override the Constitution.

    The problem I have with what Double D said is this. "The FBI has done an extensive check on my record in order for me to get a gun permit. I have served in the military. I am a licenced gun dealer. I should have the right to carry a gun everywhere I go. Not just me, but everyone like me."

    So me, not having served in the military, and not having a gun store, should not have that right?
  5. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,942
    Location:
    North Florida
    No, not by my interpretation. But, since the laws made to carry a firearm seem to trump the 2nd ammendment, then going by their interpretation, I (you) should be allowed. See, I dont think gun laws are legal in any state when it comes to a law abiding citizen. But, last time I checked, they dont agree with me. So, I go out and I play their game and get all their little requirements so I am "allowed" to carry. Just like you do. And, they do whats called a "federal" check on me (and you). If they say that "federally" I meet their bogus requirements, then I (you) should be allowed to carry "federally" which in my interpretation means everywhere that is "federally" regulated, which is everywhere in the US. Now, am I saying the law says that? Absolutely not. Just my take on the subject. P.S. In case that didnt answer your question, the reason I even mentioned being a dealer and serving in the military is this. It goes way beyond the minimum requirements to carry since I (and many many others) have had extensive background checks that should over "satisfy" their bogus laws.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2011
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obama/Holder vs. SB1070 & the citizens of AZ. May 26, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum South Dakota Pols Introduce Bill Requiring All Citizens to Own a Gun Feb 1, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Repeal birthright citizenship? Jan 11, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum AZ legislature: Candidates must prove citizenship. Feb 27, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obama's citizenship exposed ???? Nov 14, 2009

Share This Page