• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Reciprocity Momentum Builds

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
IMO - it is a beginning to the march for National Open Carry....though that might take a few days longer. :)

http://keepandbear.com/2a/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-2017/

Let your voice be heard - send the message load and clear to your congress critter:
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app...vpVehEUr3_zYFjmTmcscRYZZqXshZmbawife0Vos&lp=0

Well it might be the beginning of the march for something, but it could be something that open carriers do not want.

What we need is nation wide constitutional carry, not nationally useable permission slips.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
No hail Mary, we had the SCOTUS clearly before Scalia died. His rulings made it clear that as the deciding vote he would vote for constitutional OC. Yet the greedy people of the supposed gun rights orgs ignored his words. Being that these are some of the best attorneys in the nation I can't believe it was out of stupidity. The only reason we do not have nationwide OC is because of greed of gun orgs.

You are correct Walking Wolf. C2I2 is a very strong incentive with the, cough, cough "pro gun" NRA.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
B

Bikenut

Guest
Here is a problem with national reciprocity.....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

-snip-
(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
-snip-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts


-snip-
(2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

A plain reading by me, and I am not an attorney, says that an out of state permit does not allow a person to possess a firearm in a school zone. So even with national reciprocity the only state where it would be legal to possess a firearm in a school zone is in the state where the license was issued. And it appears, at least to me, that also applies to the state to state reciprocity we presently have also!

Want to know just how pervasive those school zones are? Here is a place where there are maps that show in some areas it is almost impossible to not be in a school zone.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=federal+1000+foot+school+zone+map+chicago&id=30DD073DA9777946F5DFF9500044D9DBD1EC4122&FORM=IQFRBA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Another problem with national reciprocity is that elections have consequences.

During a pro gun administration national reciprocity using the commerce clause as the basis for Daddy Fed having the authority to require states recognize each other's carry permits seems like a good idea. But once that precedent of Daddy Fed having the authority to exert control over carry permits is set there is nothing stopping a future anti gun administration using that same commerce clause authority to decide it is necessary to standardize the criteria for qualifying to have a carry permit nationwide. And I suspect the most restrictive states would very actively lobby Daddy Fed to enact the most restrictive requirements. I also suspect Daddy Fed would go along with those most restrictive states (for the children!) and the end result would be all states would have the same strict restrictions that states like California have now.

Be careful of what is asked for. We just might get it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
Did they really have to write this in??

Another resource to view the bill text is: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

Reading through the bill text, it irks me that they have written in language that allows for the violating of Civil Rights. Here's the text in question:

‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
How do you equate a person exercising their private property rights to a civil rights violation?

If they truly had the right to refuse service to anyone, they would be able to refuse service to LGBTQ, Disabled, Muslim, or anyone that does not follow with their views/beliefs. RKBA is also classified as a civil right, just like the anti-discrimination laws against age, color/race/creed, marital status, disability, & the other protected classes. RKBA is technically a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right, that as shown below can not be infringed upon/violated against without due cause. (The presence of a properly holstered firearm is not due cause to be asked to leave).

The definition of Civil Rights (with political rights added):
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy and the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

The above is from Wikipedia Civil & Political Rights

Additional in that same article there is mention about Civil Liberties, which links into the following Wikipedia article Civil Liberties which states:
Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The restrictions are not imposed on private property owners not open to the general public.

I can tell a black muslim, transgender that he/she must carry to enter my home - still only with permission.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Is there a difference between property rights between:

a) natural person
b) corporate person


I don't think that anyone has had OSHA running in their dwelling.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I believe the term is propertarians for those that believe in the supremacy of the right to property including proprietary rights in oneself, and you will find propertarians on the extreme right.

hummm...your definition seems a tad skewed as according to your personally endorsed reference source your term references ~ One who endorses propertarianism.

the "ism" is defined, by your great site: The libertarian philosophy that promotes contractual relationships made voluntarily, as opposed to government-imposed ones.

now as for the individuals who endorse your 'ism' defined philosophy being left or right...

A right wing libertarian may oppose the Civil Rights Act for infringing on freedom of association and intruding on states' rights, but a left libertarian would almost always support it for promoting racial equality and greater personal freedom for minorities.


Both would oppose legal segregation and "separate but equal" treatment as it happened in the South. However when it comes to de facto housing segregation and school busing, a left libertarian would be more likely to support busing for helping minorities, a right libertarian would say stop interfering.

dog gone, so your 'ism' represents libertarians on either left or right...

ipse
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Is there a difference between property rights between:

a) natural person
b) corporate person


I don't think that anyone has had OSHA running in their dwelling.
My understanding of private property rights ....

Private property rights are the same as long as the property is owned by private individuals whether singly or, as in the case of a corporation, by a group of individuals.

Any and all laws involving restrictions upon private property rights are just as much infringements as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Just because the government has singled out private property used as a business to inflict regulations/restrictions doesn't mean there is a difference between property rights of a natural person or a corporate person. It only means the government hasn't gotten around to inflicting those infringements upon our homes..... yet.

Also..
The fact that folks might agree with the restrictions/regulations that individual private property business owners and group private property owners of a corporation have to adhere to doesn't mean those restrictions/regulations are not infringements just as folks agreeing with restrictions/regulations that gun owners/gun carriers have to adhere to doesn't mean those restrictions/regulation are not infringements.

Disclaimer:
I am not an attorney, do not portray an attorney on TV or the internet, have not stayed at Holiday Inn Express, and in the past have caught all kinds of grief for my view of property rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Another problem with national reciprocity is that elections have consequences.

During a pro gun administration national reciprocity using the commerce clause as the basis for Daddy Fed having the authority to require states recognize each other's carry permits seems like a good idea. But once that precedent of Daddy Fed having the authority to exert control over carry permits is set there is nothing stopping a future anti gun administration using that same commerce clause authority to decide it is necessary to standardize the criteria for qualifying to have a carry permit nationwide. And I suspect the most restrictive states would very actively lobby Daddy Fed to enact the most restrictive requirements. I also suspect Daddy Fed would go along with those most restrictive states (for the children!) and the end result would be all states would have the same strict restrictions that states like California have now.

Be careful of what is asked for. We just might get it.

The precedence has already been set as your prior post makes clear.


(2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

The feds have long since set the precedence of regulating which permits are valid in which States. Sure, they limited themselves to school zones. But they defined those zones as 1000' feet from where school property ends. They can just as easily define it as the 10,000' that certain bullets might remain dangerous. They might just as easily remove the exemption for permits issued by the State in which the school is located. A 2 mile exclusion zone around every K-12 school in the nation for any gun that has "moved in interstate commerce", regardless of whether the carrier has any permit or not, would be an effective federal ban on carrying (OC or concealed) in most if not all urban and suburban areas, along with most of the commercial area of many small towns.

Of course, proper enforcement of the 2nd amendment against State level infringements would not rely on the commerce clause. It would rest upon the 2nd and 14th amendments. After all, if the feds can mandate that all States recognize homosexual marriage licenses based on the 14th amendment, they certainly have power to do likewise for carry permits based on 2nd and 14th amendment language.

To be clear, I believe the 2nd, as it should be incorporated by the 14th, (and similar provision in many State level constitutions) actually prohibit requirements for permits at all.

But it certainly isn't a stretch to see congress passing legislation requiring recognition of out-of-State permits, relying not on the commerce clause, but on the 2nd and the 14th, and then the SCOTUS upholding that legislation as a proper exercise of congressional power under the 14th.

It isn't lack of precedence that keeps congress from attacking our RKBA. It is the memory of the 1994 elections and the fear that any attack on our RKBA would lead to a repeat of those election results for whomever participated in that attack. In other words, lacking a much stronger court ruling than either Heller or McDonald, what protects our RKBA from federal legislation is simple, political will.

Blue collar, blue dog union members will vote Democrat...right up to the point the Democrats attack their RKBA. White collar, religious conservatives will vote Republican....I suspect until the GOP attacks their RKBA so overtly as to ban guns or negate carry permits.

No magic bullet (no pun intended). No easy road. Eternal vigilance and on-going hard work are required to protect our rights.

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Charles
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Let your voice be heard - send the message load and clear to your congress critter...

Actually, that last one looks like yet another personal information trap so that people like Dudley can continue spamming people for money.

Here's a better source: https://www.nwyc.com/

Or, one can always use the official source: http://www.house.gov/htbin/findrep

As for "National Reciprocity," it's a first step towards what our Founding Fathers envisioned from the current debacle they not only and most certainly did NOT envision, but which they wanted to avoid at all costs.

Back in the day, before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, there was talk about what the government should do after the war. Such conversations involved "governing" the people in much the same way as the crown of England governed the colonies, namely, by prohibiting all manner of freedoms "for their own good" or "to keep them in their place.

One such conversation involved keeping firearms 'safely" tucked away in armories controlled by the government until the government deemed it necessary they be used again. Another mentioned hold people's dissent against the government against them as a form of sedition.

Our Founding Fathers responded with the Bill of Rights, which was essentially flipping the bird in the faces of those who wanted to control the colonists by stripping them of their rights and freedoms.

Fast forward to today's quagmire of local, county, state, and federal regulations governing who, what, where, why, how, and when U.S. citizens can keep, bear, and use firearms.

FOOEY. That's NOT what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they penned the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." James Madison was from Virginia, a state that not only encourage its citizens to keep and bear arms, it required it:

"In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues
comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless
they were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to
"bring their peeces to church."26 In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm
within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to
purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require
him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so."

That continued up through the American Revolution.

"Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over
militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by
figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben.32 All of the proposals called for a
general duty of all citizens to be armed."

Concealed? If the people so chose. Open? If the people so chose.

Thus, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was never designed nor intended to allow for any government control at any level. It was instead specifically designed to prevent any and all government control of the right to keep and bear arms, at all levels.

With that in mind, ALL of the following are un-Constitutional infringements against the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

- limits on caliber
- limits on magazine capacity
- limits on carrying (openly or concealed)
- requiring permits for either method of carry
- limits on where people can carry in public or semi-public places

And yet here we sit, discussing how one infringement is ok while another one is not.

This is WRONG, people. Do not allow some sweet-talking huckster to rope-a-dope you into endless debates.

The Second Amendment is the LAW, in fact, "the supreme Law of the Land." It supersedes all other law, including case law (precedent).

It even trumps the United States Supreme Court, in that if We the People think SCOTUS screwed the pooch, we petition Congress to overturn SCOTUS with a clarifying Amendment.

Sadly, Congress' teeth have been infected with anti-Constitutional dogma for decades, so that's unlikely. Doesn't hurt to keep pushing, however.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The precedence has already been set...

To hell with "precendence." It doesn't trump the Constitution. Even if SCOTUS set it, Congress can trump SCOTUS with an Amendment.

To be clear, I believe the 2nd, as it should be incorporated by the 14th, (and similar provision in many State level constitutions) actually prohibit requirements for permits at all.

Indeed. "Shall not be infringed" covers a multitude.

It isn't lack of precedence that keeps congress from attacking our RKBA. It is the memory of the 1994 elections and the fear that any attack on our RKBA would lead to a repeat of those election results for whomever participated in that attack. In other words, lacking a much stronger court ruling than either Heller or McDonald, what protects our RKBA from federal legislation is simple, political will.

You'd be surprised how much of that political will comes from a Congressman's constituents, particularly with respect to the Second Amendment. I asked one of my Congressman's staffers, and he said, "it depends on the hot topic of the day, but some days, it's more than 50% of our calls."

Eternal vigilance and on-going hard work are required to protect our rights.

That and never, ever letting the bastards gain ground. I'll let you have the last word. :)

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Charles
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Here is a problem with national reciprocity.....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

-snip-
(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
-snip-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts


-snip-
(2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

A plain reading by me, and I am not an attorney, says that an out of state permit does not allow a person to possess a firearm in a school zone. So even with national reciprocity the only state where it would be legal to possess a firearm in a school zone is in the state where the license was issued. And it appears, at least to me, that also applies to the state to state reciprocity we presently have also!

Want to know just how pervasive those school zones are? Here is a place where there are maps that show in some areas it is almost impossible to not be in a school zone.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=federal+1000+foot+school+zone+map+chicago&id=30DD073DA9777946F5DFF9500044D9DBD1EC4122&FORM=IQFRBA

Read the current legislation. There's an exemption if someone is carrying lawfully under the act.
There's also relief if one is wrongfully arrested under the act.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Here is a problem with national reciprocity.....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

-snip-
(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
-snip-

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts


-snip-
(2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....

A plain reading by me, and I am not an attorney, says that an out of state permit does not allow a person to possess a firearm in a school zone. So even with national reciprocity the only state where it would be legal to possess a firearm in a school zone is in the state where the license was issued. And it appears, at least to me, that also applies to the state to state reciprocity we presently have also!

Want to know just how pervasive those school zones are? Here is a place where there are maps that show in some areas it is almost impossible to not be in a school zone.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=federal+1000+foot+school+zone+map+chicago&id=30DD073DA9777946F5DFF9500044D9DBD1EC4122&FORM=IQFRBA
This section is unconstitutional and congress knows it, the courts know it and the justice department knows it. I know of no case where someone has been charged under this statute.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Actually, that last one looks like yet another personal information trap so that people like Dudley can continue spamming people for money.

Here's a better source: https://www.nwyc.com/

Or, one can always use the official source: http://www.house.gov/htbin/findrep

As for "National Reciprocity," it's a first step towards what our Founding Fathers envisioned from the current debacle they not only and most certainly did NOT envision, but which they wanted to avoid at all costs.

Back in the day, before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, there was talk about what the government should do after the war. Such conversations involved "governing" the people in much the same way as the crown of England governed the colonies, namely, by prohibiting all manner of freedoms "for their own good" or "to keep them in their place.

One such conversation involved keeping firearms 'safely" tucked away in armories controlled by the government until the government deemed it necessary they be used again. Another mentioned hold people's dissent against the government against them as a form of sedition.

Our Founding Fathers responded with the Bill of Rights, which was essentially flipping the bird in the faces of those who wanted to control the colonists by stripping them of their rights and freedoms.

Fast forward to today's quagmire of local, county, state, and federal regulations governing who, what, where, why, how, and when U.S. citizens can keep, bear, and use firearms.

FOOEY. That's NOT what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they penned the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." James Madison was from Virginia, a state that not only encourage its citizens to keep and bear arms, it required it:

"In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues
comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless
they were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to
"bring their peeces to church."26 In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm
within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to
purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require
him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so."

That continued up through the American Revolution.

"Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over
militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by
figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben.32 All of the proposals called for a
general duty of all citizens to be armed."

Concealed? If the people so chose. Open? If the people so chose.

Thus, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was never designed nor intended to allow for any government control at any level. It was instead specifically designed to prevent any and all government control of the right to keep and bear arms, at all levels.

With that in mind, ALL of the following are un-Constitutional infringements against the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

- limits on caliber
- limits on magazine capacity
- limits on carrying (openly or concealed)
- requiring permits for either method of carry
- limits on where people can carry in public or semi-public places

And yet here we sit, discussing how one infringement is ok while another one is not.

This is WRONG, people. Do not allow some sweet-talking huckster to rope-a-dope you into endless debates.

The Second Amendment is the LAW, in fact, "the supreme Law of the Land." It supersedes all other law, including case law (precedent).

It even trumps the United States Supreme Court, in that if We the People think SCOTUS screwed the pooch, we petition Congress to overturn SCOTUS with a clarifying Amendment.

Sadly, Congress' teeth have been infected with anti-Constitutional dogma for decades, so that's unlikely. Doesn't hurt to keep pushing, however.
Absolutely!!!!

And I'm going to repeat myself.

Lets look at United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 - Supreme Court 1876
“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
Now read Heller. Heller affirms Cruikshank by stating:
“United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” 92 U. S., at 553.”
Heller also said:
“The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

Also, now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. _742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

Even though the USSC usurped power they didn't have, they declared that an absolute is not absolute. That being a legal fraud, how far does regulation get to go? Well, it has gone way to far.

The reason is the courts have joined the other two branches, in that, it's us (the government) against them (the people).

Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820: “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Students are taught America is a democracy, historians clarify it is a constitutional republic, but in actuality, America is functioning as an oligarchy – a rule by a few unelected federal judges.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “oligarchy” as: “A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands; a species of aristocracy.”

Guns in courthouses or jails seems to be reasonable, but only from a safety aspect, maybe. Everything else is an infringement on an inalienable right, and that infringement is unconstitutional, period.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
About 15 seconds in Wikipedia resulted in these cases where people were charged, convicted and the convictions were upheld under the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. ...
I wonder if those were before or after the GFSZA was first declared unconstitutional...?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
About 15 seconds in Wikipedia resulted in these cases where people were charged, convicted and the convictions were upheld under the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act.


?????? Everyone of those links have been deleted.
 
Top