Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I'm not sure how one can make the statement that "firearms laws have become more liberal over the years". When this country was formed there was NO gun control. Then a few cities and towns passed "check your firearms at with the Sheriff" type rules...interestingly, just like today, the criminals ignored those rules. With the end of the civil war came the first major restrictions on firearms. Belle Meade (spelling) TN for instance decried (still on the books as of a year or two ago as demonstrated by oneof our members) that the only way to go about the city armed was if one carried the Army and Navy model of 1841 pistol OPENLY IN THE HAND. This was intended to 1) prevent the carrying of firearms and 2) anyone brazen enough to carry one in their hand could be shot since they had a gun in their hand.
Firearms restrictions continued as a local/state issue until the unconstitutional NFA was passed and it was downhill from that point forward. Only recently have we BEGUN to turn back some of the MANY restrictions upon our RIGHT to keep AND BEAR arms.
So "over the years" restrictions became increasingly aggregious and only recently has there been a pushback and some victories. Still, most states (all but 3 or 4??) require a "permission slip" to carry concealed (an infringement) and many require a "permission slip" to purchase or own a firearm, these are infringments.
If one needs permission to exercise a right then it is not a right. I think the Constitution is quite clear that we have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR, with no arbitrary restrictions upon time and place, and therefore no "permission slip" can be justified in order for us to exercise that right.
While controversial, I posit that this RIGHT extends to all Americans and so, when a convict has served his sentence, he too has the RIGHT to keep and bear. Have we noticed the massive increase in teh criminalization of acts? The increase in the number of actions which the government dictates shall forfeit your 2nd amendment rights? The increase in non violent/non person crimes which are now felonies and thus restrict 2nd amendment rights?
It is time to recognize that the criminals are going to carry regardless of restrictions against them and that law abiding citizens (the entire remainder) must have unfettered access to the weaponry our founding fathers intended them to be able to defend themselves with. When 10 or 15 0r 20 percent of the law abiding citizens of this country are armed daily, crime will decrease as criminals discover that crime truly does not pay because they cannot determine if that "soft target" is really that soft...or if they possess the means by which to reclaim our lost civil society.
I have stated before that we have no rights under the Constitution, we merely have privileges. This belief that we are all somehow entitled to certain freedoms withing a Government structure is an unfortunate, and misplaced belief.
I agree, criminals are going to ignore laws, and do as they please. I also agree that law abiding citizens should be allow to carry, openly, whenever, wherever, and whatever they wish, well, with the exception of say, grenades, and nuclear devices that are small enough to fit in a brief case.
BTW, NFA is unConstitutional? Did the Supreme Court of the United States make a Finding with regard to the Constitutionality of the NFA?
For all of the "Constitution affirms our rights...the Constitution is an important document...the Constitution is this that, and the other" types out there who bark until they are blue in the face about the unConstitutionality of whatever Law, or law they don't agree with, one would think that those individuals would be less inclined to making statements such as "this unConstitutional Law," when the Law has either been found to be constitutional, or the Law has yet to be taken up by SCOTUS.
Last edited: