"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It would be fun to have that debate, Mike, just for chuckles. But Ken (FL) and the rest of the thread would be ready to choke us for wasting their time.
I'm on the side that says that refers to militia, not pickup truck drivers in Texas.
Nope. Of course you would get stopped because it is not legal, whether it's municipal ordinances or state laws, doesn't matter.
John,
fwiw i am not now nor was i ever a member of the nra or a militia...
and i agree heston did not write the Constitution (but so what?...i mean that is so obvious...what is your point in saying it?)
i also agree there is a difference between pickup drivers in texas and beamer and benz drivers in new jersey...Thank God.
i do believe that the Constitution applies to all Americans not a select few. and it doesn't care which side of an amendment you and i are on.
we can't just leave this hanging here.
we should all understand our own government first...so, i do not think the thread will mind another post on this subject....go ahead and tell us which states you meant when you wrote...
it is illegal in many states ....to openly bear arms.
and tell us the ordinance please.
thread...fyi...the full text of the Second Amendment to The Constitution states,
"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."
the Supreme Court has upheld the amendment within the context of a militia...but they define a militia as a civilian force. therefore civilians may own guns. the one ruling the court made was in reference to a sawed off shotgun...in that case they said...since they could find no reference where a sawed off shotgun was a normal military weapon...it is ok for the individual states to require registration of that weapon.
in that case...."In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''
emphasis added. and please remember...the Supreme Court said this in their last significant gun ruling.
the Supreme Court has upheld the states right to enact certain laws governing firearm ownership...such as no felons can purchase one.
but they also said...In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980)
some states have gun laws specific to an individual weapon....for example...
Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and South Carolina outlaw some Saturday Night Specials based on the melting point of the materials used to produce them. In 1988, Maryland became the first state in the nation to ban the sale of these weapons based on their overall low quality and concealability. Massachusetts established a standard for testing handguns in 1998 and California adopted a similar law in 1999. In addition, a number of localities including Denver, CO and Kent, OH have enacted ordinances regulating Saturday Night Specials. In 2000, the City of Toledo, Ohio became the first jurisdiction to ban both the possession and sale of handguns which do not meet a set of standards based on the ATF's criteria applied to foreign made firearms.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted regulations that would effectively ban Saturday Night Specials and mandate that all pistols and revolvers sold in Massachusetts meet minimum quality standards designed to protect children from unintentional injury. Massachusetts is the first state in the country to use its consumer protection powers to regulate the sale of firearms. These regulations will have the full force of law. The Legislature also added the language of the Saturday Night Special ban to a comprehensive gun control package which became law in October of 1998.
maryland has some other laws...including one to completely ban the sale of handguns beginning next year...but they failed to pass a law banning guns in their schools...that makes no sense to me.
i think it is important to note why the second amendment was written...Article one, Section 8 of The Constitution authorizes congress to form a federal army and navy force...the Second Amendment was enacted specifically to prevent congress from disarming the people...many at that time feared a federal army as an instrument of oppression.
there have various state rulings pro and con on the right to own firearms...but contrary to John's post...none have barred gun ownership altogether. in the last significant state case...
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms.
i believe that the amendment does bar the states from banning (but not controlling ) gun ownership. i believe it was also intended to prevent the federal government from banning private gun ownership.
barring violent (felons) and mentally incapable persons from firearm ownership makes sense to me. banning ownership of specific handheld firearms does not make sense to me...but controlling ownership of certain types of guns by license and registration does.
the rules for concealed weapons vary widely...but i do not know of any where in America where you cannot legally walk down the street with a firearm in open view...in a vehicle that means on the dash board or on the front front seat or in a window. 32 states issue concealed weapon permits.
i have been stopped with a handgun on the seat. before the officer got to the car, i placed the pistol on the dashboard. when he got to the window, i told him, my weapon is on the dash...the trooper thanked me, and said he had seen it. he gave me a warning ticket for a tail light and left.
the last significant federal court decision was a few months ago...
U.S. Court Upholds Ownership Of a Gun as Constitutional Right
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 17, 2001; Page A10
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to have a gun, the first time in recent history that such a high-level legal authority has explicitly endorsed such a view.
the court stated, "We hold . . . that it protects the rights of individuals, including those not . . . actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms . . . that are suitable as personal, individual weapons," the judges wrote.
another writer said...
"This ruling explicitly rejected the view, advocated by gun control groups, that the Second Amendment was intended only to guarantee state militias' access to weaponry.
Gun control groups had argued that the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller, upholding a federal prosecution for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, meant that the government has the right to control possession of all types of weapons. But the judges yesterday held that the Miller case was concerned only with a narrow category of weapons made specifically for illegitimate purposes such as crime."
it seems clear to me that both the last state and the last federal court decisions advocate the meaning of the amendment to be for the private citizen's right to own guns.
i have never met a person who has served in our armed forces who opposed private gun ownership.
and Bilow is right...there are states in this country where state citizens can walk in and purchase a firearm and ammunition right now with no wait...nevada is one.
unclewest |
