Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > So, where do you personally draw the line. . .

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2010, 11:40 AM   #61
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hcso617's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: TN,Tennessee
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA357 View Post
How about: Shall not be infringed?

Part of the 1A say's (I'm paraphrasing here) The Gov't shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled in many decisions that rights guaranteed are not always absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

I believe states should not pass laws more restrictive then federal laws. People want it both ways, they don't want the feds to infringe on their dope in states that have passed less restrictive laws.

States rights vs federal law, didn't we fight a civil war over this issue?
__________________
hcso617 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 04:43 PM   #62
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hcso617 View Post
There should be a national standard, over 18 no criminal record, no psychological issues, permit is guaranteed. Should be a HCP so open carry is authorized if the permit holder wants. If you are old enough to fight and die for your country, you should be allowed to carry a firearm. Standardize training, there is a big difference from state to state. Permit recognized in all states. Keep FFL class licenses as they are. There is nothing absolute except birth, death and vodka.
I'm not seeing the part of the constitution or BoR that says anything about a permit being required to own arms. Help me out with that.

To be fair, handgun permits are handled at a state or county level, not the federal level, so my point is arguably moot. But a Class III is a form of permit at the fed level.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 04:47 PM   #63
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hcso617 View Post
Part of the 1A say's (I'm paraphrasing here) The Gov't shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled in many decisions that rights guaranteed are not always absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.
True. 1A was designed to protect individuals who speak out against the federal government: they may do so freely without fear of repercussions from the federal government goon squad. 1A certainly doesn't give someone the right to say anything anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hcso617 View Post
I believe states should not pass laws more restrictive then federal laws. People want it both ways, they don't want the feds to infringe on their dope in states that have passed less restrictive laws.

States rights vs federal law, didn't we fight a civil war over this issue?
States may pass whatever laws their respective constitutions allow, even if they're more restrictive than the federal government's limits set by the constitution.

I certainly don't want any more restrictive laws; I want fewer. But this is the system we have.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2010, 05:54 PM   #64
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
laynejc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFighter69 View Post
The assault ban and magazine ban is from Clinton but Bush Jr. lifted that ban when he was elected. Did the CA state government keep the ban in tact ? What happened there please someone tell me ?
Some one correct me if I am wrong, but didnt bush jr say he would sign the ban if congress would reinstate it???
__________________
Remember the strong oak tree is just a nut that stood its ground. unknown

If we dont stand together we dont stand a chance. unknown

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils of the world are to be cured by legislation. Thomas Reed
laynejc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 09:56 PM   #65
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Desert Hills,Arizony
Posts: 774
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laynejc View Post
Some one correct me if I am wrong, but didnt bush jr say he would sign the ban if congress would reinstate it???
True, he said it
However Congress still had butt-hurt from last time they crapped on so-called assault weapons& Hi cap mags
__________________
billdeserthills is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2010, 01:17 AM   #66
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
laynejc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 229
Default

I thought that was right, voters kicked alot of them out the election following the "clinton gun ban", and if memory serves me right bush sr didnt do much of anything for the 2nd, but did do some things against it, the machine gun ban(not that they are baned, just no new ones for civillians), and an import ban if I remember right, not too sure I was in elementary, 2nd grade I believe when bush sr was elected, so if im wrong dont hold it against me, I am trying to go off of memory.

__________________
Remember the strong oak tree is just a nut that stood its ground. unknown

If we dont stand together we dont stand a chance. unknown

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils of the world are to be cured by legislation. Thomas Reed
laynejc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2010, 03:16 AM   #67
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Desert Hills,Arizony
Posts: 774
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I think you are mistaking Bush sr for Reagen

__________________
billdeserthills is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 01:25 PM   #68
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15
Likes Given: 1

Talking

I'd like to make the point that if I were a determined criminal I wouldn't let any legislation or need for permits stop me from having what I needed.
Laws are only the concern of law abiding people and of those who enforce them.
Handguns are totally banned in the u.k., (even single shot .22's) but plenty of people get shot by them each year.
I don't think there's an answer unless someone knows a way to legislate against being a crank (or a criminal!).

__________________
1928A1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Where To Draw the Line on Guns with Friends TheSadPanda Training & Safety 39 12-22-2010 11:35 AM
Anyone Draw Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay? gorknoids Legal and Activism 5 08-18-2010 04:12 AM
Have you ever had to draw your weapon? mudslinger79 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 25 04-01-2010 01:59 AM
hacked off line Kestral The Club House 1 09-02-2009 06:45 PM