State Gun Control Legislation

Quote from TRNT : i thought a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free state. silly me.

The meaning of the wording of the 2A has been explained several times. The definition of "militia" was explained and well documented numerous times. The term "state" has also been explained.

You have argued that the 2A is the red-headed step child of the BOR that uniquely does not recognize an individual right in that the phrase "the right of the people" apparently means something different than other places in the same document containing that phrase. You have argued that the 2A is an orange in an otherwise bucket of apples (the BOR). You have argued that the BOR is a bill of privileges that can be revoked by the federal government.

Your opinion on this issue is clear and apparently fixed.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : The meaning of the wording of the 2A has been explained several times. The definition of "militia" was explained and well documented numerous times. The term "state" has also been explained. You have argued that the 2A is the red-headed step child of the BOR that uniquely does not recognize an individual right in that the phrase "the right of the people" apparently means something different than other places in the same document containing that phrase. You have argued that the 2A is an orange in an otherwise bucket of apples (the BOR). You have argued that the BOR is a bill of privileges that can be revoked by the federal government. Your opinion on this issue is clear and apparently fixed.

Not quite but close.

I have not per se argued those but rather said I am not sure about them.

I have also given some arguments for my doubts. For example, the prominent mentioned of militia and state in the 2ndA could change the meaning of "people" in that amendment wrt others.

Also, my opinion on this subject is NOT fixed. (Is yours?)

BTW: do you claim the BOR are not subject to SCOTUS interpretation or subject to amendments?

Quote from ZeeDuck : I thought this was interesting. Where did the 40% number come from? Well the data comes from an old study that was conducted around 1994. Here are the numbers Source Proportion of Total Guns Obtained Gun store 43 Pawnshop 6 Other store 11 Subtotal from retail 60% Gun show or flea market 4 Through the mail 3 Member of the family 17 Friend or acquaintance 12 Other 4 Total 100% http://www.politisite.com/2013/02...TPqb1fzma4 A few things to note. 1. The gun show sales are 98% through FFLs. Thus that should be 64% retail. Mail purchases can only be done through an FFL so that's another 3%. That's now 67% If we take out transfers in the family we are down to 16% are transfers without FFLs. I think the current federal laws are considering exemptions for family transfers. That means, according to the numbers used to get the 40% rate, we are actually seeing only 16% without FFLs. I'm not sure if the 4% or the 12% is the bigger concern but take it to heart, any time you hear the 40% number either you are being lied to or someone else in the chain of information was lied to. 98% reference in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFQJSabQMHE

Fine. I take 10%. Still a huge loophole.

Quote from Dumpsterdiver : It INCLUDES putting it in bags, pockets and under coats.

Where exactly is that covered in the second amendment? The 2A covers having and holding, nothing about hiding. If society has too delicate of sensibilities to allow people to carry openly, THEN it becomes society's onus to provide a means to carry guns covertly.

Quote : What, I can't carry a knife in my pocket now?

There are limitations to how large of a knife you are allowed to conceal... Which vary by state and also may be impacted by whether the knife is double edged or has a locking mechanism. Some states also specify that for concealed carry that it is specifically a concealed pistol permit, which would not cover blades.

Quote from TRNT : Fine. I take 10%. Still a huge loophole.

Not as big a loophole as straw purchases.

Quote from ZeeDuck : Not as big a loophole as straw purchases.

A straw purchase is a private transfer that avoids/evades BGCs. So a UBGC requirement should take care of those too. Right?

Quote from ZeeDuck : Not as big a loophole as straw purchases.

In previous threads the subject of friends and family members providing guns to prohibited persons has come up. When I've asked why those friends and family members, (who almost assuredly know of the prohibited status of the person they are providing a firearm to), aren't aggressively prosecuted for those felonies, some posters have said they didn't think they should be.

Some of those same posters continue to rail about gun shows and UBGC's.

Ironic, eh?

Quote from TRNT : BTW: do you claim the BOR are not subject to SCOTUS interpretation or subject to amendments?

In 2008, the SCOTUS interpreted the 2A as recognizing an individual right.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : In 2008, the SCOTUS interpreted the 2A as recognizing an individual right.

Ok, thanks.

Do you think BOR articles cannot be amended?

Quote from TRNT : I have also given some arguments for my doubts. For example, the prominent mentioned of militia and state in the 2ndA could change the meaning of "people" in that amendment wrt others.

I can rarely resist jumping in to one of your conversations, can I?

I saw a particularly interesting quote from Samuel Adams: "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

It is fairly easy to figure out what any of the amendments meant as they were written by reading the documents that those who organized the amendments wrote, and other contemporary writings which inspired them. The only reason not to do that is if you don't want to know. Courts have agreed that the right to bear arms 1) applies to individuals, 2) applies in states and federal districts alike, and 3) applies both inside and outside the home.

Quote from TRNT : Also, my opinion on this subject is NOT fixed. (Is yours?)

I don't think I mentioned it before, but my opinion was probably pretty similar to yours up until I was 22 or 23. At which time I took an interest in philosophy and started reading more of the writings of those like Jefferson and his contemporaries, and the enlightenment writers who influenced them.

Quote from TRNT : BTW: do you claim the BOR are not subject to SCOTUS interpretation or subject to amendments?

Quote from TRNT : Do you think BOR articles cannot be amended?

You can amend them and interpret them all you want. They are merely there to enumerate some of our natural rights, which are immoral for any government or man to take away or restrain. Are you familiar with the arguments at the time they were passed against enumerating them?

Quote from msummers80 : You can amend them and interpret them all you want. They are merely there to enumerate some of our natural rights, which are immoral for any government or man to take away or restrain. Are you familiar with the arguments at the time they were passed against enumerating them?

Hmm..... interesting. Are these natural rights that you speak of....are they objectively discoverable? Are the British people immoral for not having the 5th? Are all 10 BOR natural rights? Do natural rights happen to be only 10?

Quote from TRNT : Hmm..... interesting. Are these natural rights that you speak of....are they objectively discoverable? Are the British people immoral for not having the 5th? Are all 10 BOR natural rights? Do natural rights happen to be only 10?

OK, so you aren't yet familiar with the philosophy (I don't know what you mean by objectively discoverable). They don't exist in nature as they have been enumerated. But there are principals behind them. I would say any government that does not respect individual rights is immoral to one degree or another.

Quote from msummers80 : OK, so you aren't yet familiar with the philosophy (I don't know what you mean by objectively discoverable). They don't exist in nature as they have been enumerated. But there are principals behind them. I would say any government that does not respect individual rights is immoral to one degree or another.

Can I check this for myself? Where is this documented? Who discovered it. Is the claim that we have natural rights falsifiable? Can I check it?

Quote from TRNT : Can I check this for myself? Where is this documented? Who discovered it. Is the claim that we have natural rights falsifiable? Can I check it?

This is philosophy, not science. A good place to start would be Two Treatises of Government.