Can someone please explain to me - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Can someone please explain to me

  1. #11
    Thank you very much for the info... clears it up quite a bit, "clear as mud" yep absolutely :D

    So with this information in hand, comes a follow up question...

    With the current precedents set, If I was to carry concealed into a "gun free zone" , lets say specifically a military base, which is a federal installation, and for some reason I was searched, and was found with a weapon. Then, really they couldn't legally do anything about it. Especially after the DC vs. Heller judgement. Is this a correct assumption?

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    What a great post, Cathy. Beautifully said, and artfully crafted. Thank you.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  4. #13
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Onlinedad View Post
    Thank you very much for the info... clears it up quite a bit, "clear as mud" yep absolutely :D

    So with this information in hand, comes a follow up question...

    With the current precedents set, If I was to carry concealed into a "gun free zone" , lets say specifically a military base, which is a federal installation, and for some reason I was searched, and was found with a weapon. Then, really they couldn't legally do anything about it. Especially after the DC vs. Heller judgement. Is this a correct assumption?
    If you carry a firearm onto a military installation and get caught you get to be the test case for your theory. You will AT LEAST be arrested, charged and tried.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    And no, there is still, even after DC v Heller, plenty that the government can and will try to do to you.

    The only issue at controversy in Heller was whether the federal government (read: D.C.) could outright ban private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS's reply to that question was, "Absolutely not."

    Now, the wider question we would like to have answered is, "Is there anything the federal/state/county/city/local/PTA/HOA government can do to constrain private gun ownership/possession in any way, shape, matter, form, time, place, color, weight, or voltage?"

    That is a question that the courts have not and will not ever address. It is too sweeping and expansive. They prefer to infringe and then have those multitudinous infringements pushed back against one at a time. This is the way in which the shape of Constitutional rights are defined. As the high court has opined in the past regarding the 10th Amendment, "all [rights] are retained that have not been surrendered." The SOP of avaricious federal power mongers is to claim what authorities they want and then give back only what the courts tell them to, after their jackboots have been resting firmly against the people's necks for years. If they push and we do not push back, then they win by surrender.

    Do I have the right to stand on the street corner and yell about how Obama is a Facist? In general, yes... provided I'm not accosting any individuals... and not blocking traffic... and I filed my application for for a rant permit... in triplicate... at least one month in advance... and it's not a full moon... etc.

    Heller said the federal government is no longer permitted to outright ban all guns from private ownership... It left open the question of the ban of specific types of weapons (read: still no full auto without BATFE BS). It left open the question of the ban on possession of weapons in (outside of) certain places (read: still able to be thrown in prison for possessing a gun in a self-defense-free-zone like a federal military reservation, "protected" area of an airport or seaport, or within a country mile of a school, or, in the case of D.C., anywhere outside of your own owned or rented home). It left open the question of bans of firearms based on any given laundry list of features (read: any and all of the following could still be used to send you to prison: muzzle brakes, detachable mags, carrying handles, pistol grips, china hutch, reclining chair, or any other furniture).

    What it comes down to is even after McDonald v. Chicago makes the ban on outright, universalist, absolutist, unequivocal gun bans enforceable against the states, there will still be very, very, infinitesimally little actual change visible in gun laws nationwide. In the end, only half of the 2nd Amendment will have been reaffirmed by SCOTUS. We'll have the right to KEEP our Arms, but the fight to reaffirm the right to BEAR our Arms, to, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "be at all times armed" and not merely when we are at home will be just the next front in the on-going battle to make the 2nd Amendment operate as the founding fathers intended it operate, that being to hamper, fetter, and finally imprison those who would exercise illegitimate power to disarm us in any fashion whatsoever.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    And no, there is still, even after DC v Heller, plenty that the government can and will try to do to you.

    The only issue at controversy in Heller was whether the federal government (read: D.C.) could outright ban private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS's reply to that question was, "Absolutely not."

    Now, the wider question we would like to have answered is, "Is there anything the federal/state/county/city/local/PTA/HOA government can do to constrain private gun ownership/possession in any way, shape, matter, form, time, place, color, weight, or voltage?"

    That is a question that the courts have not and will not ever address. It is too sweeping and expansive. They prefer to infringe and then have those multitudinous infringements pushed back against one at a time. This is the way in which the shape of Constitutional rights are defined. As the high court has opined in the past regarding the 10th Amendment, "all [rights] are retained that have not been surrendered." The SOP of avaricious federal power mongers is to claim what authorities they want and then give back only what the courts tell them to, after their jackboots have been resting firmly against the people's necks for years. If they push and we do not push back, then they win by surrender.

    Do I have the right to stand on the street corner and yell about how Obama is a Facist? In general, yes... provided I'm not accosting any individuals... and not blocking traffic... and I filed my application for for a rant permit... in triplicate... at least one month in advance... and it's not a full moon... etc.

    Heller said the federal government is no longer permitted to outright ban all guns from private ownership... It left open the question of the ban of specific types of weapons (read: still no full auto without BATFE BS). It left open the question of the ban on possession of weapons in (outside of) certain places (read: still able to be thrown in prison for possessing a gun in a self-defense-free-zone like a federal military reservation, "protected" area of an airport or seaport, or within a country mile of a school, or, in the case of D.C., anywhere outside of your own owned or rented home). It left open the question of bans of firearms based on any given laundry list of features (read: any and all of the following could still be used to send you to prison: muzzle brakes, detachable mags, carrying handles, pistol grips, china hutch, reclining chair, or any other furniture).

    What it comes down to is even after McDonald v. Chicago makes the ban on outright, universalist, absolutist, unequivocal gun bans enforceable against the states, there will still be very, very, infinitesimally little actual change visible in gun laws nationwide. In the end, only half of the 2nd Amendment will have been reaffirmed by SCOTUS. We'll have the right to KEEP our Arms, but the fight to reaffirm the right to BEAR our Arms, to, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "be at all times armed" and not merely when we are at home will be just the next front in the on-going battle to make the 2nd Amendment operate as the founding fathers intended it operate, that being to hamper, fetter, and finally imprison those who would exercise illegitimate power to disarm us in any fashion whatsoever.
    If you are married, your husband is a lucky man, lol.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    And no, there is still, even after DC v Heller, plenty that the government can and will try to do to you.

    The only issue at controversy in Heller was whether the federal government (read: D.C.) could outright ban private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS's reply to that question was, "Absolutely not."

    Now, the wider question we would like to have answered is, "Is there anything the federal/state/county/city/local/PTA/HOA government can do to constrain private gun ownership/possession in any way, shape, matter, form, time, place, color, weight, or voltage?"

    That is a question that the courts have not and will not ever address. It is too sweeping and expansive. They prefer to infringe and then have those multitudinous infringements pushed back against one at a time. This is the way in which the shape of Constitutional rights are defined. As the high court has opined in the past regarding the 10th Amendment, "all [rights] are retained that have not been surrendered." The SOP of avaricious federal power mongers is to claim what authorities they want and then give back only what the courts tell them to, after their jackboots have been resting firmly against the people's necks for years. If they push and we do not push back, then they win by surrender.

    Do I have the right to stand on the street corner and yell about how Obama is a Facist? In general, yes... provided I'm not accosting any individuals... and not blocking traffic... and I filed my application for for a rant permit... in triplicate... at least one month in advance... and it's not a full moon... etc.

    Heller said the federal government is no longer permitted to outright ban all guns from private ownership... It left open the question of the ban of specific types of weapons (read: still no full auto without BATFE BS). It left open the question of the ban on possession of weapons in (outside of) certain places (read: still able to be thrown in prison for possessing a gun in a self-defense-free-zone like a federal military reservation, "protected" area of an airport or seaport, or within a country mile of a school, or, in the case of D.C., anywhere outside of your own owned or rented home). It left open the question of bans of firearms based on any given laundry list of features (read: any and all of the following could still be used to send you to prison: muzzle brakes, detachable mags, carrying handles, pistol grips, china hutch, reclining chair, or any other furniture).

    What it comes down to is even after McDonald v. Chicago makes the ban on outright, universalist, absolutist, unequivocal gun bans enforceable against the states, there will still be very, very, infinitesimally little actual change visible in gun laws nationwide. In the end, only half of the 2nd Amendment will have been reaffirmed by SCOTUS. We'll have the right to KEEP our Arms, but the fight to reaffirm the right to BEAR our Arms, to, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "be at all times armed" and not merely when we are at home will be just the next front in the on-going battle to make the 2nd Amendment operate as the founding fathers intended it operate, that being to hamper, fetter, and finally imprison those who would exercise illegitimate power to disarm us in any fashion whatsoever.
    Unfortunately I am not sure how to catipult any actions to solve this problem. My pockets are not deep enough to sway the minds of those already in power that make these decisions. Nor are my pockets deep enough to start a legal battle, for the cause. Nor do I feel that the support needed for militant actions is there.
    So does one continue to carry, and exercise his/her constitutionally protected right, that has been pissed on by govt (and such), and risk illegal arrest/confinement (and all the reprocussions that come with that)? Or does one just follow the rules that have been set in place and try and keep his/her nose clean, to just be able to hang onto the limited rights that he/she does have? (I know this comes down to a personal choice, but I was looking for ideas to springboard from)

    oh yeah and +1 to what unfettered said :)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Are UN troops preparing to act on US soil?
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 08:52 AM
  2. SHTF Advice...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 10:49 AM
  3. Police use excessive force, ER docs say
    By S&WM&P40 in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 07:03 PM
  4. Mr Obama please explain this
    By festus in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 05:56 AM
  5. Where do you stand???
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 09-21-2008, 08:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast