Are our gun rights currently being infringed?

[gunowner930]

I dont mind the buying laws right now ... But if i can legally purchase a firearm, why must i jump through hoops to carry it?

Are you ok with the idiotic SBR and pistol laws? What about SBSs?

I can have an AR with a 6 inch barrel and I would need a tax stamp for it. However, if I remove the buttstock it becomes a "pistol" and legal.

 

[thebishopp]

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.


This is a very open ended ammendment - the term keep is not explicitly defined nor is bear - I am no constitutional lawyer but IMHO this language can be interpreted in many ways and unfortunately is...
Staying to the original thought process of Mr Jefferson et al I suppose they were contemplating the arms of their times - muskets, pistols, swords, knives, cannons, etc. Now in thier intent the term "bear" likely means carry. If so, arms would be limited to those you can carry/shoulder thereby ruling cannons out. Unless of course the term "keep" can cover the owning of such things as cannons and/or tanks. If so I want a bloody Abrams!!!!!!!!

in all seriousness it drives me crazy that i need special permission and have to pay $$ for said permission to buy a silencer!!!!

​

It is not so "open-ended" if you read the writings of men of that time.


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
-- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
--Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

There are of course many many more. Jefferson in particular was extremely vocal but others were clear on their opinions as well like Franklin, Madison, as well as John Adams, Samuel Adams, Paine, etc. etc. etc. Read what they said and their thought process of the time is clear.

It's interesting that their statements seem to get ignored when one desires to "interpret" the Constitution in a manner it was not meant to be interpreted. Especially love the term "modern interpretation".

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
– James Madison (It's almost like they were "psychic").

For instance, a common argument is that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a "militia"... Jefferson was clear that he considered EVERY male citizen a member of that militia:

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

Plus many many more.

What people seem to keep forgetting is that the Constitution does not GRANT us anything. We do not have "Constitutional Rights", we have "Inalienable Rights".

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
--Thomas Jefferson

The Constitutions purpose was to "chain down" the government. To help protect the rights that we already are granted by our creator (whoever/whatever you deem that to be).

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
---Thomas Jefferson

No law passed, no "amendment" to the Constitution that goes against this core belief is considered to be "constitutional" for it goes against the very purpose of it's creation.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
- Thomas Jefferson


On a side note... someone mentioned a 15 year old:

Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Of course we need to also remember that back then a lot more was expected (and delivered) from our kids.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

The criteria of "firearm" do not

hardly leave wiggle-room for a grenade! A single-time-use explosive device is not "arms" even though its safety is about as sure-fire as GLOCK's! Nor is a tank, or 2,000# bomb.

I agree that criminals by definition dont follow the law. <snip> ... anyone could own a tank or hand grenades?

 

[SSGSAD]

I voted YES, but I do not want some elements of society running around with guns ...

 

[Blackduck21]

Having travelled to all parts of the world, I am glad to have my 2a rights as they are now being enforced in the USA. Guns are simply tools that can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The long term solution is improving education in this country. If we could get people to read and learn what is really happening in this world instead of assuming CNN tells all.

 

[MTC]

Both on the federal and State level. Both to keep and to bear. A gross violation of my rights, and everyone else's, not only those specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, but also an overlooked aspect of the 4th. (Article I sections 32 and 11 of the Indiana Constitution where a state code section is in question.) Sometimes in the form of mandating by statute that I apply for and be granted a license (for example, to carry my own sidearm off my own property). In other cases, requiring by law that I submit all manner of personal information to government bureaucrats and wait for approval/authorization/permission to take possession of - to own, to keep that arm.

Went to the hardware store. Picked out some tools. Some of them (drill motors, for example), were fully automatic by means of a selector switch. Paid for them, and walked out with them.
I was not required by law to obtain prior expressed verbal or written consent before doing so.
I did not notify, nor was I statutorily required to apply for, a license or formal permission/authorization (under penalty of criminal charge for not doing so) from the ISP, the BMV, the FBI, the ATF, or the KGB.

That last is an attempt at alphabet-soup humor. Nothing against them personally. They didn't write the laws, they were assigned to administration and/or enforcement of the infringements. Also threw the BMV in there not for gun rights issues, but to highlight the main point: people, including many gun owners, readily admit that as it stands currently, driving on public roads is by definition a privilege, not a right. Never mind whether it should or shouldn't be. It presently, by definition, is. Yet where a fundamental right specifically enumerated in both federal and state constitutions and widely held to be inherent is concerned, they not only tolerate but find ways to rationalize these violations - these infringements in the form of gun control laws - of their own and everyone else's rights, usually on the pretext of "public safety", and all the while still claiming they (we) have a right.

If you have to apply for permission, you do not have a right.

A right.

 

[Stschil]

I voted YES, but I do not want some elements of society running around with guns ...

Are you implying that current laws, rules, and regs have kept those people who you would rather not have guns from obtaining and using them? I would say they have not and never will.
I'm not wanting to get into and arguement, just asking for clarification. If WE preemempt a portion of the population from RTKBA, and are OK with that, WE show that the arguement of Right vs Priveledge has been won by those who would think it is a Priveledge to be managed and maintained, regulated, and dispensed by the .gov.

Having travelled to all parts of the world, I am glad to have my 2a rights as they are now being enforced in the USA. Guns are simply tools that can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The long term solution is improving education in this country. If we could get people to read and learn what is really happening in this world instead of assuming CNN tells all.

So exactly WHO is responsible for this education? Will this ever happen if the people continue to allow these infringement? I say no. The government and media have taken too much from the people and in general, they/we sit mute and inactive allowing it to continue.
What does "in the wrong hands" mean, anyway? I present that by regulating the ability to possess, carry, and/or arms, it does more to keep them OUT of the Right hands then it does to prohibit them from the wrong.
At the risk of citing a rather overused cliche'.....
' When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'

 

[kludge]

It is not so "open-ended" if you read the writings of men of that time.

Missed one:

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: " Every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Continental Congress

 

[thebishopp]

Missed one:

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: " Every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Continental Congress

Lol thanks,that one actually addresses "every terrible instrument of the soldier"... which would apply to any weapon a soldier in the military could or would possess or use.

Of course I am pretty positive we could fill a book of this stuff. In fact there are already quite a few I believe - all conveniently ignored in "modern interpretation.

 

[ftwphilly]

I'm more yes than no. Granted philosophical in nature if there is no recourse under the law what good is any "bad" persons' potential for reform if they can never be a full citizen afforded every right? Basically, what is the incentive to be a better person if your rights are never able to be returned?

 

[CtWest]

Of course our rights are being infringed and on many levels. And not just our 2A. But that's not the topic at hand.

Think about what would happen to crime rate if EVERYONE could carry. If I'm walking into a bank thinking, "hmm there's a good chance a teller could be carrying" I'm going to think twice before walking in there, robbing it and taking a bullet before I get out. People would probably be more apt to leave others alone if they know they could get a gun pulled on them.

On a side note, I don't really want an ex-criminal concealing legally. I feel they should carry a sign..."I am an ex-con, and I am carrying"---That would make me feel more comfortable! Hahaha

 

[dcahsr23]

Those who would rather trade there freedoms for securities deserve neither and will loose both

 

[XMil]

It is not so "open-ended" if you read the writings of men of that time.


[snip]

Very good. I'd rep you, but apparently I need to "spread some around."

 

[thebishopp]

Very good. I'd rep you, but apparently I need to "spread some around."

Lol thanks. I get that notice a lot too.

 

[GunsNstuff]

Yes.

When that amendment was written, small arms in the hands of the citizens was a much more powerful force that the US government could be. There was no new law requiring a tax stamp the day repeating rifles were invented either.

Convicted felons should get their gun and voting rights back if they are non violent convicts that have stayed out of all trouble for 10 to 15 years.

 

[MTC]

Missed one:

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: " Every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Continental Congress

Always liked that one. Sums it up nicely. Also this provision from the Pennsylvania Constitution:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

In other words -
(Do you understand me, you crooked, slimy ****! )

Lol thanks,that one actually addresses "every terrible instrument of the soldier"... which would apply to any weapon a soldier in the military could or would possess or use.

Correct. At the very least, basic infantry small arms.

Of course I am pretty positive we could fill a book of this stuff. In fact there are already quite a few I believe - all conveniently ignored in "modern interpretation.

Because they don't want it to be, so they expend all their intellectual energy trying to explain it out of existence.

One area in which supporters of gun prohibition/restriction/infringement have been successful is to reframe 2A discussions in terms of starting with limitations, restrictions and prohibitions first, then working backwards from there to arrive at the point they think it should be - whether complete bans for the people at large, only the police and military, only if one is licensed and registered, etc.
They also derail discussions by immediately jumping to things like nuke/bio/chem or any other diversion when the artificially created controversy and debate of their own making over contemporary basic infantry small arms has not been settled.

Even then, none of that matters if it cannot be agreed on what a Right is.

 

[rugertoter]

I want a real select fire M4 at free market value. Yeah our gun rights are being infringed.

Free market value?!? Ohhhhh...the horror!

 

[army bratt]

a licence is gun controll. dont make the mistake of thinking that we are safer with them because we are not!

 

[jbombelli]

Anybody who thinks their gun rights aren't being infringed should go out and try to be a new M249.

Just because you never exercised a right, and don't miss it now that it's gone, doesn't mean it's not gone.

 

[beararms1776]

Indiana laws aren't that bad. I think nearly everyone should be allowed to defend themselves in their homes by whatever means they choose. The carry laws are a little tighter but that's expected.