Senate May Try to Override State Concealed Weapons Restrictions...

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
I assume you mean is, not should be. That would be a whole other can of worms.

Well, I typed IS and I meant IS. Yup, I meant what I posted.

What happens to you for yelling 'fire' in that theater, when there is no fire, should you get caught, is something you won't like. Most places, it will get you a fine and/or a little time to think about it (in a cell).

Same thing with inciting a riot.

Both are clear examples of truly reasonable restrictions of free speech.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
7,658
Likes
751
Location
Live Free or Die
I have no problem at all with this getting through as an amendment. what I have a problem with is a usurpation of state's rights.

Amendments inserted into "must-pass" bills by the minority is as old as The Republic itself. It's often the only way a minority party can get things done.

I have a lot more problem with attempted fillibusters on virtually everything the majority tries to pass than I have with amendments. It was wrong when the Dems tried it and it's wrong when the Reps do it.

The argument would be the state HAS NO RIGHT to restrict gun ownership and use in the first place. Therefore it isn't usurping states rights. I guess the "correct" way would be to legally challenge them to SCOTUS.
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
3,518
Likes
545
Location
Marlborough, MA
Well, I typed IS and I meant IS. Yup, I meant what I posted.

What happens to you for yelling 'fire' in that theater, when there is no fire, should you get caught, is something you won't like. Most places, it will get you a fine and/or a little time to think about it (in a cell).

Same thing with inciting a riot.

Both are clear examples of truly reasonable restrictions of free speech.

Just being clear. Where we're talking about what should be as regards restrictions on the 2A.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
Just being clear. Where we're talking about what should be as regards restrictions on the 2A.

Oh, reasonable 2A restrictions.

Yeah, that's easy.

There are a few reasonable restrictions on the 2A. The founders definitely deemed a need for them.

First of, they clearly meant infantry type weapons, so not allowing the public to have nukes could be considered reasonable. Other WMD could be added in as well. Field Artillery and Tanks are questionable, as are fighter jets and battleships.

Secondly, they clearly did not want truly mentally disabled (and not just a little disabled) people or convicts owning firearms. I think a reasonable addition would be those previous convicted of a violent felony.

There should be a reasonable age restriction. Somewhere between 11 and 16, if there's parental consent.
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
3,518
Likes
545
Location
Marlborough, MA
Oh, reasonable 2A restrictions.

Yeah, that's easy.

There are a few reasonable restrictions on the 2A. The founders definitely deemed a need for them.

First of, they clearly meant infantry type weapons, so not allowing the public to have nukes could be considered reasonable. Other WMD could be added in as well. Field Artillery and Tanks are questionable, as are fighter jets and battleships.

Secondly, they clearly did not want truly mentally disabled (and not just a little disabled) people or convicts owning firearms. I think a reasonable addition would be those previous convicted of a violent felony.

There should be a reasonable age restriction. Somewhere between 11 and 16, if there's parental consent.


As regards reasonable restrictions on 2A rights, I don't consider it unreasonable to require evidence of competence to carry in a public place. That is the only kind of requirement I consider to be tolerable. (Note: tolerable != ideal, just tolerable). That would mean no limits, including age limits, on owning/using on private property/transporting. I would argue that anyone considered to be incapable of being held responsible for their actions (those who are sufficiently mentally disabled, children, etc) might require the consent of their guardian to purchase, and said guardian would be the nominal owner where liability is involved.

As regards explosive devices over a certain energy yield (this would probably be somewhere in the range of an RPG7, though there should be provisions for adjusting it upwards as needed in the future), proof of competence could reasonably be required for ownership. Above some higher yield limit (lets go with 10lbs of C4 here, for the sake of argument) some higher legal status (demo license?) would cover anything up to about 10 tons of TNT. Once the blast radius leaves the 'x yards' order of magnitude in favor of the 'x city blocks' order of magnitude, prohibition is probably acceptable.

As regards vehicles, the ownership of the vehicle should never be at issue. Arming the vehicle would simply require the appropriate weapon/explosive permit.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
4,095
Likes
780
Location
Live Free or Die
Oh, reasonable 2A restrictions.

Yeah, that's easy.

There are a few reasonable restrictions on the 2A. The founders definitely deemed a need for them.

First of, they clearly meant infantry type weapons, so not allowing the public to have nukes could be considered reasonable. Other WMD could be added in as well. Field Artillery and Tanks are questionable, as are fighter jets and battleships.

Secondly, they clearly did not want truly mentally disabled (and not just a little disabled) people or convicts owning firearms. I think a reasonable addition would be those previous convicted of a violent felony.

There should be a reasonable age restriction. Somewhere between 11 and 16, if there's parental consent.

Unnecessary restrictions. That kind of firepower requires a ridiculous amount of coin just to maintain, much less operate in a continuous fashion. If spmeone's willing to make that kind of investment, I'd call them a fool, but I'd want to be their friend. Let 'em have it. Just because things are made legal doesn't mean they're gonna be handed out on the street corners.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
Unnecessary restrictions. That kind of firepower requires a ridiculous amount of coin just to maintain, much less operate in a continuous fashion. If spmeone's willing to make that kind of investment, I'd call them a fool, but I'd want to be their friend. Let 'em have it. Just because things are made legal doesn't mean they're gonna be handed out on the street corners.

Price goes down when the restrictions cease.

And, it conceivably wouldn't cost a lot of money.

I could easily see the US Government get forced into selling obsoilete combat vehicles by auction. They do that with trucks and other equipment already.

So, a lucky person could submit a low bid and buy one.

Not to mention the whole $$$ value is a moot point, as that is flawed logic at best. Back in 1934, $200 to register a $50 machine gun was considered enough of a financial deterrent to prevent ownership. Today, the $200 is just a small nuisance, as the better stuff costs in excess of $10,000.

Truth be know, I'd just as soon they simply adopt a particula state's firearms laws, with the restriction on silencers removed.

Check Vermont firearms laws, and there's a set of laws proven to work, without being overly restrictive. We've even got low crime rates up here.

CCW in Vermont? There is no law, never has been. It isn't prohibited.

Vermont laws on ATF Website. A very short read.

Add the fish and game law that prohibits a loaded rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle, and you're done.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
4,095
Likes
780
Location
Live Free or Die
Price goes down when the restrictions cease.

And, it conceivably wouldn't cost a lot of money.

I could easily see the US Government get forced into selling obsoilete combat vehicles by auction. They do that with trucks and other equipment already.

So, a lucky person could submit a low bid and buy one.

Not to mention the whole $$$ value is a moot point, as that is flawed logic at best. Back in 1934, $200 to register a $50 machine gun was considered enough of a financial deterrent to prevent ownership. Today, the $200 is just a small nuisance, as the better stuff costs in excess of $10,000.

Truth be know, I'd just as soon they simply adopt a particula state's firearms laws, with the restriction on silencers removed.

Check Vermont firearms laws, and there's a set of laws proven to work, without being overly restrictive. We've even got low crime rates up here.

CCW in Vermont? There is no law, never has been. It isn't prohibited.

Vermont laws on ATF Website. A very short read.

Add the fish and game law that prohibits a loaded rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle, and you're done.

You really like bragging about VT huh? [smile]

Airplanes are really expensive. But I'd bid on an Abrams if I had the chance.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
You really like bragging about VT huh?

Well, I still live here. I was even born here.

I like the freedom and the laws best. Once you get outside Burlington and Rutland, even our Liberals are armed.

I doubt an Abrams would get sold. But, an M60A3 or M48A5 could be.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
32
Likes
5
Location
Nashua NH
Why do you say the founders "clearly meant infantry type weapons"? There were privately owned cannons and battleships at the time of our founders and I don't see that any "reasonable restriction" against them enshrined in our constitution. Further the constitution allowed for the issuing of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" which assumed the private ownership of ships of war if not private armies.

In the example of the "yelling fire in a theatre" there is a huge difference between prior restraint and punishing of an action. If people were gagged before entering a theatre then it would prior restraint and that would be equivalent of a restriction of bearing arms. It's completely proper to punish someone for their actions if their actions caused harm, even if their actions were constitutionally valid. Freedom of speech doesn't protect one from charges of slander or libel for example. In the same way let's punish people if they use a weapon in an inappropriate manner and not use prior restraint against a right that was not supposed to be infringed.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
Matt, my point on the restrictions on 1A issues is to point out that there are reasonable restrictions on everything, though some would disagree.

Many try to point out there are no 1A restrictions and they're wrong.

As to the gag bit, does punishing after violating the restriction make the restriction go away? No, of course not. Gagging isn't done, but we still can't yell fire (without suffering the penalty if caught). Not much difference than many 2A restrictions that are currently in place.

As to 'infantry type weapons', I think you'll find the intent after some digging through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Takes a while to find it.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
32
Likes
5
Location
Nashua NH
My point was that they are restrictions in use and then restrictions of prior restraint. Free speech in your example is not restricted by prior restraint but punished for misuse. Just like keeping and bearing (owning and carrying) weapons should never be restricted but that misuse of those arms can, and should, be punished.

I've dug though the federalist papers quite a bit and saw nothing to intimate that. How could letters of marque be issued without privately owned war ships? I think there are even examples of privately owned artillary companies in the civil war.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I tend to agree, and think the REAL answer would be encorporation of the 2A.
I agree, in fact, I don't think incorporation should be required at all as it does not specify "Congress" in 2A - it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

But since we've gone down this long dumb road of incorporation - the "least worst" next step is incorporation...

Oh, reasonable 2A restrictions.

Yeah, that's easy.

There are a few reasonable restrictions on the 2A. The founders definitely deemed a need for them.
That slip of the tongue will haunt us for generations to come...

"reasonable restrictions" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and no objective standard was created - see the post below[sad2]
As regards reasonable restrictions on 2A rights, I don't consider it unreasonable to require evidence of competence to carry in a public place.
Who decides "evidence of competence"?

If you happen to be scared of my politics and you are the designated "licensing officer" might you not be tempted to accept my "competency?"

Two words for you "poll test"...

That blows a 50BMG hole in any just about any "reasonable restriction" you can come up with... You name the "reasonable restriction" and 9.95 times out of ten I can show you how it can be, will be or has been used for political oppression in the past...

FWIW, any interpretation of 2A out of the context of a group of people who had just thrown off the yoke of the king and the most powerful military on the planet is disingenuous at best... At worst, its a lie intended to deceive those who don't know their history.

They intended nothing short of us doing the same thing if the time came and we'd need to be able to bury arms under the north bridge sufficient to get the job done...

Arguments about state militias make me turn red and want to slap them with a history book (metaphorically of course).
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I want to start requiring evidence of people to competently exist in a public place.
Before you do that (ACORN is working on it to control pro-constitution demonstrations), I'd like to see a "suitability" test to hold public office... [thinking]

It would involve both pre-emptive tests of character as well as monitoring to punish abuses of the constitution and mishandling of tax payer money...

Write one law struck down by the courts - dock your pay. Write two, or one really bad one with the court's finding and the license can be pulled and you are out of office...

Felony, mental treatment, alcoholism, divorce, restraining order, arrest, invocation of 5th amendment or 4th amendment rights are all indications of unsuitability as well...

So, basically the current red or black town MA LTC system for politicians...

[laugh]

I am mostly joking... [thinking]

If we can be judged for our suitability for a weapon that on a really bad day can kill a few people, they too should be judged holding a weapon (government) that can kill 10's of thousands with the stroke of a pen...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
663
Likes
8
Location
MANNING SC
???????????

could it be a reaction to the heller case??several cities dumped their gun laws in reaction.some one could sue if the gun laws were lifted by a scotus ruling.but if congress lifted the bans there might not be grounds to sue.just a thought.
 
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
3,518
Likes
545
Location
Marlborough, MA
Who decides "evidence of competence"?

If you happen to be scared of my politics and you are the designated "licensing officer" might you not be tempted to accept my "competency?"

Two words for you "poll test"...

Any restriction where there is only one licensing officer is by definition unreasonable. I would expect to see something more along the lines of a simple standard is set by the state, and you can get certified either by the state directly, or by any other licensed individual. Any denial of license could be appealed to a judge + jury.

That blows a 50BMG hole in any just about any "reasonable restriction" you can come up with... You name the "reasonable restriction" and 9.95 times out of ten I can show you how it can be, will be or has been used for political oppression in the past...

Sure. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Any power you give any government or agent of said government will be abused, not just 9.9 or 9.99999 percent of powers, 100 percent of all governmental authority will always be abused sooner or later. The goal is therefore to design a system in which the abuse that will inevitably occur is less bad than the "natural state" of things, that is to say less bad than not having that authority. I don't have any hard data, but I do wonder how the number of NDs where a person other than the one responsible is harmed compares to the number of people inappropriately denied a CCW permit in NH.

FWIW, any interpretation of 2A out of the context of a group of people who had just thrown off the yoke of the king and the most powerful military on the planet is disingenuous at best... At worst, its a lie intended to deceive those who don't know their history.
They intended nothing short of us doing the same thing if the time came and we'd need to be able to bury arms under the north bridge sufficient to get the job done...
Arguments about state militias make me turn red and want to slap them with a history book (metaphorically of course).

Of course they did. I've always parsed the 2A as follows: "In order keep the state safe and free, we need a militia. To that end, everybody and their mother should be armed to the teeth at all times." Unfortunately, not enough people read it that way, or there would be no restrictions on full auto.
 
Top Bottom