The Right To Keep and Bear Arms

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by hogger129, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    "The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the People and shall not be infringed."

    If Chicago politicians try to sidestep the SCOTUS ruling by adding on huge fees, requiring people to get a permit to purchase, requiring people to take classes before puchasing... Aren't they still in breach of the Second Amendment? They are still "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Just as the Federal government told southern states in the past that they could not impose fees, or other things to stop black Americans from voting. (Voting Rights Act).
  2. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Mar 12, 2010
    I think your right. I believe they would lose in the courts.It would be in the same arena as a poll tax.IMO And as you stated.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2010

  3. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Who will challenge them?
  4. 199er

    199er New Member

    May 5, 2010
    Columbia SC
    I agree that they are in breach of the Second Amendment but the court decision left an opening for some restrictions. The question now is where are those lines drawn? I think we are going to find that out through a truck load of forthcoming litigation. Challenges and counter challenges............its going to be ugly.

    I hope I'm wrong but when it comes to individual gun rights I"m a pessimist..........

    ....................definition of a pessmist? an optimist with much experience
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2010
  5. Nortranman

    Nortranman New Member

    Dec 11, 2005
    I think we must realize that these people are not going to go quietly into the night. The will throw up roadblock after roadblock to proper rights under the second amendment. They are, no doubt, just as determined to deny those rights as we are to enforce them. The fat lady ain't sung yet!
  6. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    The voters?

    Wanna own a gun? Kick the bums out.

    Washinton State is a shall issue, open carry, and right to defend State.
    It is also one of the bluest in the Union. The last mayor of Seattle thought he could ban firearms on city property. The AG took him to court and he was laughed out of it. Some years back they tried to pass trigger lock legislation. This is a good read:

    The NRA gets due credit for helping in this defeat, but the real heros were the states Law Enforcement Agencies.

    "Law enforcement support was critical--and astronomical. More than 80% of the state's police and sheriffs were on our side. Newspapers also overwhelmingly editorialized in our favor. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for example, commenting on the state's average of about 14 annual accidents with handguns among those under age 15, noted: "The death or injury of even one child cannot be dismissed, but if the aim is to prevent the irresponsible behavior of 14 handgun owners annually, we must ask if licensing the remaining 999,986 responsible handgun owners is an effective means to that end."

    My brother is a LEO and he got me a sign that took up the entire rear window of my car, shouting down the initiative. At the time, I was commuting almost 100 miles a day on I-5. In the three months I drove with the sign, I never got pulled over once.

    Coming from the bluest of blue states, I say let the people vote. My experience is that the left isn't so far left when it comes to the 2nd and the want to rid our nation of it. As our vote showed, we do have something in common. It's the minority that are trying to concoct this destruction of our basic rights. And we voted for them.:eek:

    Our law enforcement saw this for what it was. They Knew it was BS and spoke out accordingly.:cool:

    I say bring it on and let the people decide.:D
  7. johnlives4christ

    johnlives4christ Former Guest

    Apr 28, 2008
    i think that the NFA is a violation of the second amendment. the amendment does not give any reference to what type of arms, therefore all arms, including short barreled shotguns and machine guns, grenades and morters should not be restricted.

    i however do not believe this applies to nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. while they are yet arms, the knowledge required to safely handle such items is limited at best by the general public and the use of such arms can not only endanger the immediate area, but many hundreds of miles.

    weapons of mass destruction are not classified as "arms" and the second amendment only guarantees the right to "arms"
  8. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Mar 12, 2010
    Why then are we always in an arms race? Just kidding john.
  9. johnlives4christ

    johnlives4christ Former Guest

    Apr 28, 2008
    my arms tend to lose any race they are entered end... they have to drag me along with them
  10. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    CHICAGO (AP) - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will push for a strict handgun ordinance to replace its doomed gun ban that will likely include limiting each resident to a single handgun, requiring gun owners to have insurance and prohibiting gun stores from setting up shop in the city, his top lawyer said Tuesday.
  11. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    Yeah see this is what I mean. Now he's going to pass all this stuff to make it such a burden to get a gun, that nobody will be able to exercise that right. Isn't that the same thing as what southern states did to prevent blacks from voting? The Federal government needs to come out and pass some legislation similar to the Voting Rights Act to prevent the states from passing stuff to prevent people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I think we're going to see battle after battle in the courts. This is just the beginning.
  12. kingchip

    kingchip New Member

    Jul 2, 2009
    Marble Falls, Texas
    Sounds racist to require a huge permitting fee for guns within a given locale. Can we pull that one? Seems to work for the other team.
  13. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    D.C. got around the 2nd Ammendment this way: The Chief of Police issues permits. They are valid for 1 year max. There are no clear instructions on how to apply available. ยง 22-4506. Issue of licenses to carry pistol. The Chief of Police of the District of Columbia may, upon the application of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the District of Columbia or of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by the lawful authorities of any State or subdivision of the United States, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol within the District of Columbia for not more than 1 year from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed. The license shall be in duplicate, in form to be prescribed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and shall bear the name, address, description, photograph, and signature of the licensee and the reason given for desiring a license. The original thereof shall be delivered to the licensee, and the duplicate shall be retained by the Chief of
    Police of the District of Columbia and preserved in his or her office for 6 years.
    (the underlining is mine, and put there to indicate the reason you can't get a license in D.C.)

    I believe you will see such laws under Daley. And D.C. does not recognize a CCW from any state what so ever.
  14. Eddie N

    Eddie N New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    Seems to me that if the Constitution guarantees it (Constitution of the United States) then those who want to infringe on our rights are going against the Constitution, their oath of office, and the United States. This includes state and local governments. And if they're against this country, then they should all be thrown out and sent packing to another country.
    IMO we shouldn't need a permit to carry, concealed or otherwise. And we sure do not need any more stupid gun laws!
  15. lawdawg

    lawdawg Member

    Jun 21, 2010
    South Alabama

    What really chaps my hide is THIS IS A CONSTITUTUIONAL RIGHT!!! It shouldn't matter WHY you want to exercize that right. You should not have to show REASON to exercize that right! Is this not equivilent to having to show reason why you should be protected against warrantless search and seizure? Or reason why you should not be forced to testify against yourself? Or being forced to apply for a license to due process? I know, I know... I'm preaching to the choir, but trying to get a liberal to see the logic and hypocrisy in this is like milking a bull. Yes there is a certain faction of people (criminals) who should be denied certain rights, but the ordinary law abiding citizen should not have to receive permission to exercize a right, THE CONSTITUITION has already given that permission.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum piers-morgan-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-without-infringement-act Jan 24, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The wife and I exercised our right to keep and bear arms today. Oct 22, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum USA National Poll On Right To Keep & Bear Arms Jan 6, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Sep 30, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Right to Keep and Bear Arms Jun 16, 2009