Thursday, January 31, 2008

Blog Item #3: What Kind of Firearm (Gun) Do You Own?





9 comments:

Anonymous said...

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution 1791.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only tAhe rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Anonymous said...

Guns and Stimulus package....

The government stimulus check I am getting soon will stimulate me to buy a gun.

Anonymous said...

Washington DC - The Second Amendment guarantees a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." What that means exactly has been a source of intense debate that stretches back to America's founding.

Some legal scholars believe the amendment protects a right to keep and bear only those firearms that are necessary for ongoing service in a state militia. Other equally distinguished scholars hold the view that the amendment guarantees individual Americans the right to possess and use firearms, even when the guns are not related to service in a militia.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a potential landmark case that could settle the question once and for all.

The high court last addressed the issue almost 70 years ago in a case called US v. Miller. But that decision left the debate unresolved.

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has been marked by a surprising lack of clear and decisive action on the Second Amendment. As a result, many of the legal briefs in the current case instead of emphasizing prior decisions of the high court offer competing versions of American history, focusing on the debates, writings, and experiences of the nation's founding era.

An unprecedented case It presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."

"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us … have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."

But that's also what makes it unpredictable, according to other analysts.

"We have no track record on any of this," says John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who embraces the militia-service view.

The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."

In addition to settling a historic debate, how the high court reads those words will hold important implications for the constitutionality of gun control measures across the US. It could also inject the fiery issue of guns into the 2008 campaigns for president and Congress.

The debate over gun rights and gun-control exists at a major fault line in American political culture. One side views guns as a threat to public safety; the other views them as a protection of personal safety and national liberty.

Specifically at issue before the court in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is the constitutionality of a ban on handguns and other gun-control measures enacted 32 years ago in Washington, D.C.

Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer at the Federal Judicial Center, wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense. But the city government refused to issue him a permit, citing the city's stringent gun laws.

Mr. Heller sued in early 2003, charging that the handgun ban and other measures violated his Second Amendment right.

A federal judge threw the case out in March 2004, ruling that since Heller was not a member of a militia he had no constitutional right to firearms. But that judgment was reversed 2 to 1 last year by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeals court found that the right to arms established in the Second Amendment is broader than a narrow link to a militia.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the city argue that the Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearms rights, not the personal use and possession of firearms. The city's lawyers say the first clause of the amendment limits the scope of the entire amendment.

Lawyers for Heller disagree. They characterize the amendment's first clause as a preamble to the rights-securing language in the second clause. "The preamble cannot contradict or render meaningless the operative text," writes Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura, in his brief to the court.

In the Constitution, when the framers refer to "the people," they are discussing individual rights, Mr. Gura says. By conferring a right to "keep" arms, the people thereby enjoy a right to have arms in their homes and use them for personal protection, he says.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia say the Second Amendment was not written to create an armed populace. It was designed to address concerns about national power to arm – or disarm – the state militias. "The amendment prevents Congress from interfering with the right of the people of each state to arm a well-regulated militia composed not of professional soldiers, but of the people themselves," writes Todd Kim, solicitor general of the District of Columbia, in his brief to the court.

Other gun laws may be affected
District of Columbia v. Heller requires the high court to confront a series of questions. First, what kind of right does the Second Amendment secure, a collective, militia-related right or an individual right?

Second, if it secures an individual right, is that right violated by a handgun ban and other strict gun-control measures such as those enacted in Washington?

To answer the latter question the high court would have to decide what level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to the city's gun-control laws. Will they use the strict scrutiny applied to protect the free speech rights of the First Amendment and other fundamental rights? Or will they use the lower level of scrutiny generally applied against government regulations?

This is the aspect of the case that could jeopardize gun-control measures in other parts of the country.

Some analysts say that even if a majority of justices rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, their ruling will not necessarily undercut most existing gun-control laws.

A similar handgun ban in Chicago would probably be unconstitutional, they say, but widely adopted gun-control measures like background checks and machine gun restrictions would most likely survive.

"The issues in this case are not about eliminating all reasonable restrictions on firearms," says Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who authored a friend of the court brief on behalf of Texas and 30 other states urging the high court to strike down the handgun ban.

"Instead, they are about does the Second Amendment protect a real right," he says. A decision in the case is expected by late June.

Anonymous said...

If by chance the Supreme court rules that only Milita's may own weapons, how would we go about forming a National Milita? On one hand the Government has always refered to Milita as a bad word, a group of wild gun shooting drunk hillbilly's. Now, Now they are speaking of them in a different tone, or maybe just out of the other side of their mouths. My screen name is proudamerican831. While I am not always proud of our government, I am proud of Americans and their quest to remain free. I am proud to be an American.

SIG SAUER BROKER said...

Buy Firearms Online From Sig Sauer LLC

Agro Chemicals Labs said...

Buy Research Chemicals USA From Agro Chemicals Labs LLC

Glock guns for sale said...

New Rule: Gun-control people have to stop pressuring Starbucks to ban guns. I want my gun nuts overcaffeinated, twitchy, and accident-prone. That way, the problem will take care of itself. Plus, if just one gunnut kills just one pseudo-intellectual writing a screenplay-slash-graphic-novel on his iPad, natural selection is doing its job.

Kimber Firearms said...

I debated whether or not to post this but decided I'm interrested in you'alls opinion. I bought my Ultra Carry II new in 2003, shot it a lot, maintained it carefully and changed the recoil springs at or before the recommended intervals. This fall I noticed two small vertical cracks in the frame, right at the forward edge of the frame rails. Sent it into Kimber for inspection and yes, they are cracks. My frame is cracked and my slide is set up with the external extractor that caused so much trouble at the time i made my purchase. ( I never had any trouble with the extractor at all). Per Kimber Pistols, the gun could not be returned to me because it no longer met their current specs, or they could return it with a formal certificate from the manufacturer that it was not safe to shoot. Or, they could sell me a new Kimber firearm at a substantial discount, roughly 27 per cent off list price. I chose that option because, untill the cracks, this was a great firearm, lightweight, reliable and very accurate. And yet, it doesn't really set well with me. Is a cracked frame in a well maintained Kimber Rifle firearm acceptable after almost 20 years of use? Is it a design defect that Kimber would rather not be known? I freely acknowledge that their stated warranty is only one year, but there are many posts on this forum that "Kimber will make it right" Did they? Kimber Firearms For Sale Online

Australian Shepherd Puppies For Sale said...

You have performed a great job on this article, I like the helpful information you provided. I'll bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite certain I will learn a lot of new stuff right here! It’s very precise and highly qualitative. You have even managed to make it readable and easy to understand. You have some real writing talent. Thank you so much. Looking for a Reputable Australian Shepherd Breeders Locally. We have
Red Merle Miniature Aussie Puppies For Adoption and Purebred Blue Merle Australian Shepherds