Shouldn't the SCOTUS case abolish LTC requirements?

[Runs With Scissors]

Consider your question self-answered.

I see your point

 

[WayneWong]

It should, it will, but the system only works for people who throw money at it.

 

[Titan]

Which was a God given right back when they wrote the Second Amendment!

I agree.

This is all such BS.

We've gone from God given rights to self defense affirmed in the Constitution, with a clear expectation that meant 'with firearms', to...

waiting for incorporation to the states

hoping for 'shall issue' LTC-Bs

accepting 'reasonable restrictions'

etc.

all because we NOW believe everything we're entitled to comes from the Supreme Court and the politicians who sit on it!

.

 

[Nickle]

Well, you may think God-Given.

But, Congress has already taken some of it away. So don't tell me they CAN'T.

You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.

Keep thinking "They can't take my God-Given rights from me", while doing NOTHING to protect them (throwing money at organizations doesn't count as doing something), and you will certainly lose them.

 

[jcr]

If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal?

You're reading too much into the decision.

The Supreme Court rulled that DC's (federal) handgun ban violated the US Constitution's Second Amendment protections. That's all.

Since the early days of our republic, the law was that the Federal Gov't couldn't intrude on State gov't authority. And that Bill of Rights protections limited Federal Gov't only -- not State Gov't.

It was thought by Contress in the late 1860s that they would extend those protections via the 13th Amendment. The intention was then that the States would not be able to pass laws that violated the Bill of Rights.

In fact, many States already had very similar protections built into their own State Constitutions. Many issues were already moot.

Not all issues though. In the 1870s there were plenty of racists that wanted no part of "Negroes" begin about to shoot back at them. Back then there were enough Supreme court Justices who agreed, and declared that the Second Amendment didn't restrict what States could impose on individuals.

Since then, almost all of the rights listed in our US Bill of Rights have been extended by the Supreme Court against the states (a process the legal profession refers to as "incorporation").

The Supreme Court has not done that with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It didn't do it in Heller, because the case we purely Federal.

Their "dicta" explained their thinking, and laid some groundwork for future challenges to state law that infringes.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.

Keep thinking "They can't take my God-Given rights from me", while doing NOTHING to protect them (throwing money at organizations doesn't count as doing something), and you will certainly lose them.

Sounds good but unless one plans on becoming a lawyer and fighting the system yourself then it seems to me that the reasonable alternative would be to give money to an organization that can handle the problem.

Alternatively, one can consider the fact that as long as you continue to be complacent and adhere to the system then every dollar you give the state for licenses, state mandated training, etc goes (in some part) to fund the state's efforts to take away the very right you are paying them for the right to exercise. So if you don't want to fight them yourself and you don't think that paying someone else to fight them then I suppose the alternative to that is to acquire guns without proper state consent (ie: illegally) and then challenge the courts to send you to jail. I guess that would definitely count as doing something all right.

 

[pbearperry]

makes no sense

Reading the ruling isn't the problem. I've read it several times. Sadly, since I'm not well versed in "legal-eeze" it made no more sense the eighth time I read it then it did the first time. That's why I asked here.

It makes no sense to anyone.Some things never change.

 

[Nickle]

Sounds good but unless one plans on becoming a lawyer and fighting the system yourself then it seems to me that the reasonable alternative would be to give money to an organization that can handle the problem.

So, you're one of those guys that joins the NRA and maybe GOAL as well, then sits back down on the couch, proud of himself for "fighting for his rights", while going to back to watching TV, aren't you?

You DON'T have to be a lawyer to write your reps, or your local papers.

You DON'T have to be a lawyer to take a newbie shooting. Don't need to be an Instructor, either.

You DON'T have to be a lawyer to run for political office, either.

Just doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem is NOT going to change things.

Do you REALLY think I am a lawyer?

Do you REALLY think crak, Martlet, dwarven1 or Mr Twigg are lawyers? Think Wayne Wong is a lawyer?

Hint, none of us are rich, either. We're ALL working stiffs. We are ALL making a difference.

Are you REALLY so naive that you think this stuff is only resolved in court?

You do know we actually elect our politicians, don't you?

Let me ask you a simple question. It's going to hurt your feelings, but I HAVE to ask it. Are you so useless, that the only thing you are capable of doing is to be a test case? Please tell me you are better than that. I KNOW you are better than that.

If my comments sound demeaning, good, change your ways, get off the couch and start bailing. I'll welcome the help, and even pat you on the back and congratulate you for it when you do.

You don't have to be a lawyer (or an expert in anything) to help bail.

 

[Nickle]

It makes no sense to anyone.Some things never change.

Some of us understood it right off. It is written in English.

It doesn't say what you were hoping it did.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

So, you're one of those guys that joins the NRA and maybe GOAL as well, then sits back down on the couch, proud of himself for "fighting for his rights", while going to back to watching TV, aren't you?

Nothing in my statement implied that I did any of those things. Don’t act like you know me.

You DON'T have to be a lawyer to take a newbie shooting. Don't need to be an Instructor, either.

I don’t even know where this comment is coming from.

You DON'T have to be a lawyer to run for political office, either.

That’s right, but being in political office still requires you to file legal briefs to fight court mandates and good luck writing one without legal experience. Especially in regards to something as controversial and complex as gun control.

Just doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem is NOT going to change things.

Who said that anyone was “doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem”?? But I’m glad to hear that you have other ideas. So what have you done that has changed anything? I’m just curious. You seem to be proud of what you’ve done to help solve the problem so I’d be interested in hearing what you’ve done that has worked to change the gun control laws in this state.

Do you REALLY think I am a lawyer?

Honestly, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about you.

Do you REALLY think crak, Martlet, dwarven1 or Mr Twigg are lawyers? Think Wayne Wong is a lawyer?

See previous answer

Hint, none of us are rich, either. We're ALL working stiffs. We are ALL making a difference.

Another wonderfully crafted vague boast.

Are you REALLY so naive that you think this stuff is only resolved in court?

Are you so naïve as to draw tons of conclusions about me based on a few posting on a website??

You do know we actually elect our politicians, don't you?

Who is this “we”? We all vote. We don’t all elect our politicians. Sometime others elect the politician. Unless you have succeeded in being on the winning side of every election since you came of voting age. If you’re that lucky then I’m impressed.

Let me ask you a simple question. It's going to hurt your feelings, but I HAVE to ask it. Are you so useless, that the only thing you are capable of doing is to be a test case? Please tell me you are better than that. I KNOW you are better than that.

If my comments sound demeaning, good, change your ways, get off the couch and start bailing. I'll welcome the help, and even pat you on the back and congratulate you for it when you do.

Couple of thoughts here: your comments would have to hold a level of value for me to actually be “demeaned” by them. But given the combative nature of them, they don’t.

If you want help trying being nicer. As Momma used to say: “You get more bees with honey then with vinegar.”

Oh and…um…no offense but your congratulation plus a cup of coffee only gets me a cup of coffee.

You don't have to be a lawyer (or an expert in anything) to help bail.

…or polite apparently.

You, know the funny thing is that I totally agree with what I think you are “trying” to say but the way you are making it is so rude and offensive that I couldn’t care less about it’s meaning and kinda can’t help but tune it out.

You also make a lot of arguments that are just vague and meaningless like:"We are ALL making a difference" and "Just doing nothing more than throwing money at the problem is NOT going to change things." That's great! How? Where? It's so vague and general that it means nothing especially when you are using such a argumentative tone.

You might want to give it another shot with a little better attitude. I think you have some valuable input but poor execution. That's just my two cents.

Best wishes to you.

 

[Baldkat82]

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Some of us understood it right off. It is written in English.

Oh please. Understanding a language does not automatically confer one with an understanding of everything written in it. Stop trying to treat everyone like their stupid.

 

[jar]

RWS, Nickle is a big cheese with Appleseed. He's taught dozens if not hundreds of people to shoot and about our history as a nation of riflemen.

As Alan Gura said "You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change."" 922(o) is the law that closed the machine gun registry, but the idea applies to all gun control laws. The real way to protect our rights is to get as many people as possible on our side. Giving money to groups is asking someone else to do it instead of stepping up. If not you, then who? If not now, then when?

I don't think Nickle was attacking you personally at all. He was just making the point that a few paid advocates at gun rights organizations aren't what's going to make the difference. It's boots on the ground that will.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

I don't think Nickle was attacking you personally at all. He was just making the point that a few paid advocates at gun rights organizations aren't what's going to make the difference. It's boots on the ground that will.

I totally agree on both points: I think being directly involved in a cause can help create a better chance of success and I also agree that that's what he was trying say...in between the cheap shots about sitting on the couch and that everyone can understand court documents solely based on the fact that it's written in English.

 

[Titan]

Well, you may think God-Given.

But, Congress has already taken some of it away. So don't tell me they CAN'T.

You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.

Keep thinking "They can't take my God-Given rights from me", while doing NOTHING to protect them (throwing money at organizations doesn't count as doing something), and you will certainly lose them.

What do you know about what I do or don't do, or what I think? Are you just naturally hostile?

 

[Cato]

Well, you may think God-Given.

But, Congress has already taken some of it away. So don't tell me they CAN'T.

You only get to keep the rights you're willing to fight to protect. The rest you LOSE.

Natural rights can not be lost or "taken away". They are inalienable. However they can be disabled. The only valid method to disable a natural right is through individual due process. Unless you are in prison your gun rights have not been rightfully disabled.

Non-natural rights created by the social contract may be lost however. This can happen either by due process or by the people's representatives lawfully changing the social contract.

 

[Nickle]

Hate? I hate nobody that's reasonable. Just so you know, the only people I've seen on this forum that aren't reasonable are on Ignore, and neither of them have posted in this thread.

RWS (I'll keep it short, no insult intended), my point was to shock you awake, because kind words weren't working.

Where to start here?

--------------------

"Giving money."

Good idea, believe me, but NOT enough in and of itself. It's going to take far more than money to fix the situation we're in right now.

You have NO CLUE how many people I've known that donate their annual dues to the NRA and expect people to kiss their feet for doing something. Well, when they do something, I'll give them ccredit. Giving money isn't near close to enough to call "something".

GOAL is worth giving to. Defintely your ONLY friend in Mass right now. Everybody else wrote you off, except for a few organizations that still act in other ways than just asking for money.

NRA? Use your own judgement. They have compromised rights away before, more than once, in order to be "reasonable". They don't get any of my money. I'm not AGAINST them, I just think there's better places to spend it.

Regardless, money is a help, but not the answer.

----------------------

"God-given rights that are inalienable."

Well, believe what you want about them being God-given. I know a slightly different, and historical origin. The creators think they were God-given, as do many people. I'll accept it in principle at least. (I'm an Atheist, and therefore don't believe in God, that's all.)

The Bill of Rights says inalienable, but truth be known, they also accepted "reasonable restrictions" even then. Their idea of reasonable pretty much matches my opinion. Clearly insane, or a felon convicted of "mala per se" crimes.

In practice, they are hardly "inalienable". If you think that's a lie, you're wrong. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86 (MG portion), "Jim Crow" Southern CCW laws from the 1800's and early 1900's, '94 AWB and many state laws are clearly restricting our rights.

Constitutional? No, I don't think so. But, my opinion doesn't make the law change.

-----------------------

"What I know about RWS, Titan or Cato?"

Not much, other than what you post. That's where I make my opinion of you from.

From this side of the conversation, I can make a few observations.

All 3 of you tend to see your 2A Rights as God-Given.

All 3 of you seem to have the idea that those rights can not possibly be taken from you (that's the way it comes across, and strongly).

All 3 of you seem to show that you think you either have to be a lawyer and get the laws changed in court, or don't have to do anything at all. Again, that's what your words are making people think.

Some of you think you have to be a lawyer to be a politician. Howard Dean? Doctor. Ron Paul? Doctor. (Some folks think lawyers shouldn't be allowed to be politicians. I agree withthem.)

All 3 of you (and many others) seem to think you don't understand the Heller decision.

All 3 of you now think I'm one arrogant bastard. (Almost can't blame you on that one.)

Remember, you give those impressions with your posts. That's all I have to judge you with.

FWIW, I don't think any one of the 3 of you are that bad. I do think you're not well enough educated in the problem, the history of the problem o how to fix it.

--------------

Let me tell you some about me.

First, I'm not a braggart. I wasn't boasting. Exact opposite.

I work for a living (working stiff). That makes me no better or smarter than you. I happen to know the others I mentioned, personally (except Wayne Wong), and I can vouch for all of them (including Wayne Wong) to be normal people, just like you and I.

I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.

Yes, I can read pretty well. Especially Firearms law related stuff. My father is an FFL, and I help him sometimes. I did my research, you can and should, too.

Yeah, I'm NO better than any of you.

Yes, I am a Master Instructor with Project Appleseed. Yes, I've taught a few hundred people to shoot, and shoot well. Yes, I'm a Senior Staff member with the organization as well. So what, you could do the same, given some time and effort. It took me a LOT of time and effort to get there. Still doesn't make me BETTER than you, just a little more educated in certain areas. I'm sure you're more educated than me in others.

----------------

"What I know and what I'm saying to you."

Well, first thing I'm saying is, Get off the couch and start bailing. Need to know what to do and how? Ask. Yes, I'll give you some suggestions, just like I did before.

Quit thinking you HAVE to be a lawyer to get things done. It's a long tough legal battle, and frankly, it'll take longer than we have time for.

The way to change things, IF they can be changed (and it's worth trying to change things), is through the legislative process.

How do we change that? We throw the Socialist, Anti-Constitution BUMS out of office and replace them. We get the ones worth fixing (what few there are) convinced to fix things.

How do we throw the BUMS out? The ballot box. Yeah, you heard that right, the ballot box. We simply wake enough voters up to make the difference in election outcome.

How do we wake them up? Take them shooting. Educate them. Write your local paper, Letters to the Editor or Opinion section. I'll warn you now, sometimes it doesn't get printed. Keep writing, and write other papers.

Eventually, you'll get to enough to make the difference. You have got your work cut out for you in Mass, but I think it can still be done. The only option right now is try or quit, and I don't like quitters.

How do you getthe ones worth fixing to come around?

What does a politician like? Power, and to get reelected. When they fear getting thrown out next election, they will start changing their minds.

You know why the DNC won't ask for an outright gun ban (all of them, not just certain kinds)? Because they KNOW the next election cycle, they're out of office, period, with NO coming back. The voters won't stand for it.

So, they take rights a little here, a little there. Use excuses like it's for our own safety, for the children, etc.

You can write them, but, with the BUMS you have in Mass (for the most part), well, I personally wouldn't waste the postage. I don't waste my time writing Pat Leahy, either.

Write the papers, like mentioned above.

Also, the way to really change politics is bottom up, NOT top down.

----------------------

"Things YOU can do to start fixing things."

Take a newbie shooting.

Learn to shoot better yourself. Unless you can always shopot perfect scores, there's more to learn, when (not if) you get good enough, become an Instructor, and help out.

Get yourself to an Appleseed and check it out IN PERSON. I may be involved in he organization, but we are a 501(c)3 Non-Profit organization. We don't get paid forteaching these events. We actually do it because we think it WILL make a difference. Check it out on-line. The link is in my signature line, and Dwarven1's as well, as well as some of the rest of the crew.

--------------------------

Tell me exactly what you are currently doing to change things.

Because, from the impression I've gotten, all I hear from you is telling me about how your rights are inalienable (even though half or more of them are already gone).

Maybe I just don't know what you are doing, because you don't mention it.

------------------------

A thought for you in parting (again, no insult intended here).

You seem to be proud of what you’ve done to help solve the problem so I’d be interested in hearing what you’ve done that has worked to change the gun control laws in this state.

So, I have been to your state, teaching people how to shoot, waking them up, opening their eyes, giving them an appreciation for what our forefathers did for us. I also am teaching your local Appleseed Instructors, and am involved with all of that on a national and Regional level. That's what I've one for you.

But, I don't even live in Mass. And, I am doing something. No, those laws aren't going to change overnight. It takes years. But, at least I'm doing something about it. What I can, I guess. Come join me.

 

[Cato]

"God-given rights that are inalienable."

Well, believe what you want about them being God-given. I know a slightly different, and historical origin. The creators think they were God-given, as do many people. I'll accept it in principle at least. (I'm an Atheist, and therefore don't believe in God, that's all.)

The Bill of Rights says inalienable, but truth be known, they also accepted "reasonable restrictions" even then. Their idea of reasonable pretty much matches my opinion. Clearly insane, or a felon convicted of "mala per se" crimes.

In practice, they are hardly "inalienable". If you think that's a lie, you're wrong. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86 (MG portion), "Jim Crow" Southern CCW laws from the 1800's and early 1900's, '94 AWB and many state laws are clearly restricting our rights.

You clearly are lacking in understanding regarding the founding principals of this country. I normally would not write something like that but felt that I should since you constantly boast about having more knowledge in this area than most. Trust me, you do not.

First off, I used the term natural rights not God given rights. I know that you are an atheist and did not feel the need to debate that issue. For the purpose of this discussion natural rights and God given rights as you like to call them are interchangeable.

I was simply trying to explain to you the concept of a lost right vs. a disabled right. Natural rights can not be lost but only disabled. This is the proper terminology. I realize that you are having a hard time understanding this concept but it is an important distinction.

There are two basic types of rights. There are natural rights and non-natural rights. Natural rights are those that you possess simply because you were born. These fall under the broad categories of life, liberty, and property. The right to self defense by the most efficient means available is the most basic of all natural rights since it falls under the right to life. The firearm is also one of the most efficient tools to protect liberty and property.

Natural rights can not be taken away. Try to follow this. If it is a natural right that you were born with it is inalienable and can not literally be taken away. If a group of people whether it be common thugs or members of our government are preventing you from exercising a natural right then the right is considered to be disabled. You still possess the right but you can not exercise it due to fear. For example, if I was to duct tape you to a chair you would still have the right to move freely. I would have disabled that right but you still possess that right.

Non-natural rights are somewhat different. Non-natural rights are those that are created by social contract. These social contracts would include city and town by-laws, state constitutions and the US constitution. Non-natural rights are rights that do not exist in a pure state of nature. In a pure state of nature with no social contract or government we would still possess the right to self defense but we would not have non-natural rights such as the right to a speedy and public trial. This right as stated in the 6th amendment is not a natural inalienable right at all. You were incorrect when you stated the Bill of Rights is considered inalienable. Many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not natural rights but are rights obtained by leaving a pure state of nature and joining a society. As you can imagine there are no courts and no trials in a pure state of nature.

The only legitimate way to disable a natural right is by due process. Legislators can not legitimately disable a natural right by statute. Natural rights should only be disabled on an individual case by case basis based due to violation of laws created by the people’s representatives in the legislative branches on government. In other words the individual should be charged, brought to trial and convicted of a crime and then and only then should a natural right be disabled. Legislatures can not legitimately write broad legislation that disables a natural right such as the right to self defense by means of a firearm. They do of course, but I want people to understand how wrong it is and how it goes against the very principals that this country was founded upon.

 

[Nickle]

Cato, try again.

The 2A is actually based off from Old ENglish law, back to the Magna Carta.

Yeah, I am better versed than you think.

The problem you're having is getting wrapped around the semantics of how the rights were lost. You say they weren't, because it wasn't an option to take them in the first place.

Remember, Inever said they were taken CONSTITUTIONALLY, even if they were taken LEGALLY. Those 2 words are more different than you think.

But, according to you, I'm an idiot and you're an expert. Must be you're the lawyer that I'm not.

Care to be the test case?

Because, somehow, I get the feeling you are advocating ignoring the current laws, with the defense that they are Unconstitutional. That might be a big mistake.

I'll bother you no more.

 

[Hogie1]

Can I add that I heard on the radio the other day that regarding the Heller case, to the "powers that be" in DC, they are dragging their feet on licensing because they believe the SC ruling "is open to interpretation". It was also said that Mr Heller is having to file litigation again. Just what I heard, I have not seen it in print or know the specifics. Can anyone add to this?

 

[M1911]

You clearly are lacking in understanding regarding the founding principals of this country. I normally would not write something like that but felt that I should since you constantly boast about having more knowledge in this area than most. Trust me, you do not...

Angels. Dancing. Pin. How many?

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Angels. Dancing. Pin. How many?

The answer lies in the accepted notion in the religious communities that angels are pure intelligences, not material in the physical plane of existence, but limited, so that they have location in space, but not extension. Therefore the question is analogous to asking how many people's thoughts can be concentrated upon a particular pin at the same time. The answer, therefore, is that an infinity of angels can be located on the head of a pin, since they do not occupy any space there.

What?? I'm having a slow work day

 

[Titan]

Nickle,

Do you know what narcissism is?

.

 

[Nickle]

Nickle,

Do you know what narcissism is?

.

Yeah, I do. I went and checked it out, so I don't get tripped, like my .38 S&W brain fart yesterday.

Sigmund Freud believed that some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth and was the first to use the term in the reference to psychology.

The terms "narcissism", "narcissistic" and "narcissist" are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness.

If you're thinking I'm narcissistic, you're misreading me. I can't expect you to believe that, but, ask around, some of the folks that have been here a while. They know.

I'm high PO'ed by gun owners that are too lazy (apathetic) and too inept to get off their butts and do something about it. It's a hot key issue for me. You have no idea how many people I've met that are so apathetic over keeping their rights. Some (only a few) are on this forum. Many are on one of the bigger gun forums, FAL Files. I quit going there, due to arrogance and apathy that wouldn't be tolerated here.

I would know the (apathetic) type, because I was there, right up to the '94 AWB. That was my first "wake up" moment.

If you knew me at all, personally, you would know that I'm anything but overly narcissistic. Can't fault you there, you've never gotten the chance to meet me, nor I meet you.

Titan, if I really thought the lot of you were THAT bad, I wouldn't have responded at all. I'll PM you a tidbit of info I won't discuss here. Nothing derogatory about anybody in this thread, either, I promise.

 

[drumenigma]

I definitely agree and feel the same as Nickle does on many of these issues. I haven't been a gun owner long but in that short time I have seen how fast things can change. They can change for the better or worse within a very short period of time. These politicians who are looking to regulate and strip you of all things you hold dear will never let down for a minute. We have to do the same ourselves to keep them from infringing on our simple liberties we hold in such a high regard. I was never as active with politics as I am now until I became a gun owner and found this website. The people on this board have really inspired me to be more active and stand up for what I believe in. I've seen the effects in the negative laws that didn't make it and some positive movements as well. I wish more people could be active like that instead of throwing money at the problem. There are some who don't even do that much which is just sad.

 

[Titan]

Nickle,

Thanks for the PM.

I think we now both have a better understanding of each other and where we stand. More communication is always helpful.

I apologize for the narcissism comment. You're right, it was a misread.