Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: gir on July 11, 2007, 02:56:34 pm

Title: question about firearms laws
Post by: gir on July 11, 2007, 02:56:34 pm
from what i was told ect is it true you can legally carry a firearm as long as its visable "open carry" without permits or license? and is it the whole state or certain towns ect?
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: cathleeninnh on July 11, 2007, 03:40:32 pm
Yes, visible, open carry of firearms is legal without any sort of permit.

I didn't even know guns could be fun before I came here. I've been able to try so many things here. It has been interesting and exciting.

Cathleen
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on July 11, 2007, 04:35:21 pm
A state that recognizes the second amendment?!    :o

Here's how the CA legal system views the second amendment, per a practicing attorney and college teacher.  This speech was recited by Mrs. Karen Sadler on the first day of a "Constitution & Rights of Americans" course at Modesto Junior College (http://www.mjc.edu):

Quote
[paraphrasing from memory]
'The second amendment was intended only to apply to members of the official state militias.  Since we now have a centrally organized military, state militias are no longer in existance.  As such, the second amendment no longer applies to any citizen, and is null and void.  Any student stating otherwise in reports or on exams will be penalized.'

And so, I passed that class with a "B" instead of an "A"
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: LibertyforLife on July 11, 2007, 04:38:58 pm
Obviously she wasn't a English major and can't understand English. In my course studies of law I find that the English language is nothing like the law language.

I can't wait to learn more about guns and owning a few when I get to NH. I'd do it now, but I don't want be hassled or go through the hassle of going through Canada with one.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: gir on July 11, 2007, 04:42:42 pm
hey forest, well even though im in cali i own and shoot firearms alot and all i can tell you is when you get there get one! they are so much fun to me its a way to relax, i find it soothing i have no clue why. but youll enjoy it. but im going to be glad when i get there cuz cali has realy strict gun laws.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: LibertyforLife on July 11, 2007, 08:57:47 pm
Yeah, I'm hoping to catch a class in NV at Frontsight, perhaps a class here in AK before winter. Front Sight has a range up here, but its limited.

I've shyed away from guns because when I was younger I had anger management issues. I'm much better now, and am only overly paranoid. Not the black helocopters are watching me, or paranoia like that, but that people are monitoring my internet traffic, and reading what I post on the internet and so forth.

Now, I want to learn how to use guns. I'm kinda interested in the whole process of hand making guns as well. I've thought about learning smithing in general.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: citizen_142002 on July 17, 2007, 10:58:45 am
There are no laws at the local level regarding firearms, and there can't be by state law. Some areas near manchester are shotgun only as far as hunting goes, but that's about it for local restrictions, and to be honest, I believe that the shotgun/rifle hunting areas are ultimately decided by Fish and Game, not the locality.

There are some towns where the police are more likely to hassle you. I know in Keene the don't. I've had friends who were open carrying, and a Massachusettes person made a stink and then called the police. They informed her that there was nothing they could do.

Manchester and Salem are where the cops have been known to give folks a hard time.

Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on July 17, 2007, 12:56:44 pm
Manchester and Salem are where the cops have been known to give folks a hard time.

Well, I think it's just that we need MORE people those areas openly carrying; that way the cops will get used to the idea and realize they're wasting their time.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: sj on July 18, 2007, 03:14:11 pm

Well, I think it's just that we need MORE people those areas openly carrying; that way the cops will get used to the idea and realize they're wasting their time.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=13940.0

Just posted this
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 18, 2007, 04:44:55 pm
http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq

Any questions not answered there, I'm sure Pro-GUN NH and/or Gun Owners of NH and/or the NH Second Amendment Sisters would be happy to answer :)

http://pgnh.org/
http://gonh.org/
http://www.2asisters.net/nh/index.html
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John C on August 12, 2007, 02:29:28 pm
from what i was told ect is it true you can legally carry a firearm as long as its visable "open carry" without permits or license? and is it the whole state or certain towns ect?

Yes you may carry a loaded handgun openly without a concealed permit.
Very important thing to remember: Putting on a jacket or other item that covers it makes it concealed. Also getting into any vehicle, makes it concealed.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: sj on August 12, 2007, 05:29:29 pm
By the way, she was wrong.  The DC circuit just essentially confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.  Now we just have to get SCOTUS to say it.

Yup  ;D

That was a GREAT opinion.  They actually quoted alot of the founders and what they said regarding the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. 

I was able to meet the guy who's litigating the Parker v. Washington DC case and he told me that if he loses at the Supreme Court, he will probably lose on a standing issue; not on a susbstantive issue.  He said he's not TOO worried about an anti-2nd amendment ruling coming from the SCOTUS so that was good to hear. 


There are so many quotes by the Founders that throw this "it's a right for the militia" bulls**** right out of the water.  My favorite: "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on August 12, 2007, 08:32:25 pm
Fight the commie power next time.  When I was finishing my BA at CSUSM, I almost got thrown out of a class for disputing the leftist propaganda being spewed from a professor.

By the way, she was wrong.  The DC circuit just essentially confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.  Now we just have to get SCOTUS to say it.

For general ed, I took a course on constitutional law and civil rights.  Within the first 5 minutes of class, the teacher jumped into the 2nd Amendment, and said that right is reserved for the militia, and we no longer have militias, so 2A is null and void.  She informed us that anybody submitting an answer contrary to this on any essay or test would get 0 points for that work.

I hadn't heard about the DC circuit ruling... I'll be sure to read up on that!  By the way, if you're interested, we've got some lively discussions of CA gun laws over at OpenCarry.com (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/)
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: sj on August 12, 2007, 09:09:19 pm

I hadn't heard about the DC circuit ruling... I'll be sure to read up on that!  By the way, if you're interested, we've got some lively discussions of CA gun laws over at OpenCarry.com (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/)

Done any FSP plugging?
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: hotchkiss on October 02, 2007, 11:48:34 pm
Hello. My second post on the FSP forum after having learned about it an hour ago. :) Good to hear that it's legal to carry a firearm on your hip in NH. I'm in Arizona, same deal here. Are there any restraints on owning semi-auto "assault weapons"  (  ::) ) in NH?

I'm the very happy owner of an AR-15, and would not want to part with it if I was to move away from Arizona.

P.S. My Bushmaster is affectionately named "Chucky"  for of course, who else?  Chuck Schumer
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: sj on October 03, 2007, 07:40:08 am
Hello. My second post on the FSP forum after having learned about it an hour ago. :) Good to hear that it's legal to carry a firearm on your hip in NH. I'm in Arizona, same deal here. Are there any restraints on owning semi-auto "assault weapons"  (  ::) ) in NH?

Nope.  The Brady Campaign report on NH is here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=nh

NH has GREAT gun laws (and porcs are working to make it better by making it easier to carry in your car).  The Brady Campaign (one of my least favorite anti-freedom organizations) gives NH a D-  ;D.  If you're known by your enemies, I'd say NH is in good shape.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: "Hagrid" on October 03, 2007, 08:42:07 am
Hello. My second post on the FSP forum after having learned about it an hour ago. :) Good to hear that it's legal to carry a firearm on your hip in NH. I'm in Arizona, same deal here. Are there any restraints on owning semi-auto "assault weapons"  (  ::) ) in NH?

No.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on October 03, 2007, 10:32:53 am
After a recent trip to AZ, I was told that it is illegal to carry a firearm in any business that serves alcohol.  Unaware of this, my first stop upon arrival was at a sports pub where I met up with family and had a couple beers and a burger.  The place was pretty busy, as it was Friday at about 4:00 (well past quittin' time for outdoor labor in the summer).  Nobody - including those that dined with me - gave me any odd looks or commented that I had a gun on my hip.

When I heard about the law (a good week after I returned to CA), I was surprised to hear about the statute.  Hell, I don't think CA even has a law like that!

From accounts I hear about Taproom Tuesday, NH doesn't have any crazy laws like this.  However, there is work to be done there.

I look forward to working on gun right infringement reform when I get to NH.  For example, I would like to see the concealed weapons laws repealed.  The criminals ignore the rules and the law-abiding citizens can get a shall-issue permit, so it's just a waste of taxpayer dollars administering 'permits.'
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 03, 2007, 11:25:50 am
From accounts I hear about Taproom Tuesday, NH doesn't have any crazy laws like this.  However, there is work to be done there.


NH has the fewest restricted places for firearms carry in the nation - only courtrooms IIRC.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: lasse on October 03, 2007, 01:34:10 pm
From accounts I hear about Taproom Tuesday, NH doesn't have any crazy laws like this.  However, there is work to be done there.


NH has the fewest restricted places for firearms carry in the nation - only courtrooms IIRC.
And then of course the federal restrictions. NH's carry permit isn't draconic enough to exempt NH permit holders from the federal disarmed victim school zones.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: hotchkiss on October 03, 2007, 04:29:52 pm
After a recent trip to AZ, I was told that it is illegal to carry a firearm in any business that serves alcohol.  Unaware of this, my first stop upon arrival was at a sports pub where I met up with family and had a couple beers and a burger.  The place was pretty busy, as it was Friday at about 4:00 (well past quittin' time for outdoor labor in the summer).  Nobody - including those that dined with me - gave me any odd looks or commented that I had a gun on my hip.

When I heard about the law (a good week after I returned to CA), I was surprised to hear about the statute.  Hell, I don't think CA even has a law like that!

I can't comment on the law perttaining to alchohol sales, but private concerns/ establishments do reserve the right to prohibit firearms. Of course, in California you'd never be able to carry the weapon on your hip in the first place without a CC permit.

Don't get me started... ;)
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John C on October 03, 2007, 05:51:59 pm
After a recent trip to AZ, I was told that it is illegal to carry a firearm in any business that serves alcohol.  Unaware of this, my first stop upon arrival was at a sports pub where I met up with family and had a couple beers and a burger.  The place was pretty busy, as it was Friday at about 4:00 (well past quittin' time for outdoor labor in the summer).  Nobody - including those that dined with me - gave me any odd looks or commented that I had a gun on my hip.

When I heard about the law (a good week after I returned to CA), I was surprised to hear about the statute.  Hell, I don't think CA even has a law like that!

I can't comment on the law perttaining to alchohol sales, but private concerns/ establishments do reserve the right to prohibit firearms. Of course, in California you'd never be able to carry the weapon on your hip in the first place without a CC permit.

Don't get me started... ;)


Wait until you come to NH. You will walk into firearm stores and start drooling. You'll be like a kid in a candy store.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: Keyser Soce on October 04, 2007, 12:00:53 am

I look forward to working on gun right infringement reform when I get to NH.  For example, I would like to see the concealed weapons laws repealed.  The criminals ignore the rules and the law-abiding citizens can get a shall-issue permit, so it's just a waste of taxpayer dollars administering 'permits.'

One benefit of the CCW is reciprocity with other states. I understand your sentiments but would rather have a permit in a shall issue state that is recognized in other states where it would be more difficult to get one. For instance, With only AZ and FL, one can carry concealed in the following states:

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

That's 33 states with 2 permits. Well worth the concessions.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: yoplait on October 04, 2007, 12:11:57 am

One benefit of the CCW is reciprocity with other states. I understand your sentiments but would rather have a permit in a shall issue state that is recognized in other states where it would be more difficult to get one. For instance, With only AZ and FL, one can carry concealed in the following states:


Alaska has the best of both.  You don't need a permit (Vermont style carry laws), but you can get one if you want in order to have reciprocity. 
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on October 04, 2007, 02:20:08 am
I can't comment on the law perttaining to alchohol sales, but private concerns/ establishments do reserve the right to prohibit firearms. Of course, in California you'd never be able to carry the weapon on your hip in the first place without a CC permit.

I had the AZ statute linked to me over on the OpenCarry.org (http://opencarry.org) forums.  Look at the second post in this thread (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum10/4586-2.html).

Also, CA does not prohibit carrying a firearm on your hip; in fact we have 3 people in the state that open carry.  (There might be more that do, but us 3 have discussed it on the forums.)  It's very rare because the powers that be have done an excellent job tricking the public into thinking it is illegal.  And it is very tricky to navigate the laws - unloaded in city limits, 1000' from schools, etc.  One guy had his CCW revoked because the cops saw him open carry and the sheriff didn't like that.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: RangerProbst on October 04, 2007, 02:26:23 am

I work in Executive Protection in CA and I can't even get a concealed permit. My county (Alameda county, 1.46 million peoples) has a .013% issuance rate with only 192 permits issued throughout the entire county. Ridiculous. In other words, if you want to go on a shooting rampage, this is probably one of the best places to do it.

Disclaimer: I don't want these next few remarks to sound callous because I very much value human life. I'm just trying to make a point. In no way would I ever really consider taking such action or supporting actions like it. People that shoot unarmed civilians to express their dementia are psychopaths of the worst sort. They deserve to be blasted down the very instance they start following through with these kinds of actions.

All the rampage shooters you see in the media weren't that good. I'm ex-military, had elite training, expert marksman my whole career, won a marksman competition in the service, Special Forces, LRRS, and Scout Snipers all tried to recruit me, you get the point. Just hypothetically speaking, if I ever decided to go psycho and start blasting people in CA, I GUARANTEE I could get into the low triple digits in kills within the first five minutes with more than a few Law Enforcement Officers included in that total. Oh, and a ten round mag cap wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. God help CA if it ever happens.

When I think about that, it does a few things. First, it makes me practice my disarms more. (But c'mon, who really wants to bring a fist to a gun fight?) Two, it makes me want to leave. Three, it disgusts me because if that was to happen, the socialist scum that infests CA would make sure there were LESS firearms among the law abiding citzens. I just can't see how this makes sense to anyone. I'm awed by the stupidity that infests this place.

I'm signing the statement of intent tonight by the way and planning to have my feet on the ground in NH by June 1st, 2008.

Here's a scarry fact about criminals. I read this report (I can't remember who put it together, you could probably google it) where they reviewed numerous shootings involving officers and criminals serving time. The criminals had a higher hit percentage than the officers! They then interviewed inmates and officers that had been in shootouts and they found that criminals practiced a good deal more than officers. The criminals had a perception that police officers spend tons of time practicing when they really don't.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on October 04, 2007, 02:38:11 am
All the rampage shooters you see in the media weren't that good.

They don't have to be good when they're shooting at fish in a barrel.

I'm a college student, so I'm constantly entering the most popular shootin' barrell - a public school campus.  Luckily, there is no law against carrying a pocket knife (in fact they have no length restriction on folders).  So, I'll be bringing a BIG knife to the gun fight - better than hiding in the corner IMO.

You should check out OpenCarry.org and see what we got going on there.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: RangerProbst on October 04, 2007, 03:37:43 am
All the rampage shooters you see in the media weren't that good.

They don't have to be good when they're shooting at fish in a barrel.

I'm a college student, so I'm constantly entering the most popular shootin' barrell - a public school campus.  Luckily, there is no law against carrying a pocket knife (in fact they have no length restriction on folders).  So, I'll be bringing a BIG knife to the gun fight - better than hiding in the corner IMO.

You should check out OpenCarry.org and see what we got going on there.

You may have a knife but you are still toasted oasties if you're not very highly skilled and can't get within 3 feet without getting capped. If you intend on staying in CA and continuing to carry a knife, I'd invest in some Tabamina Balintawok training. Id also learn several of the Krav disarms as they are pretty much the best in my opinion. You have to think about what you would do if a gun was pointed in your face and you haven't yet pulled your live blade.

If you aren't super quick, have an extremely effective economy of motion, and haven't practiced the disarms/attacks a thousand times under extreme stress, I wouldn't even try it. You'll get killed and maybe get others around you killed. You best bet is to run your ass off.

Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: LibertyforLife on October 04, 2007, 08:42:00 am

One benefit of the CCW is reciprocity with other states. I understand your sentiments but would rather have a permit in a shall issue state that is recognized in other states where it would be more difficult to get one. For instance, With only AZ and FL, one can carry concealed in the following states:


Alaska has the best of both.  You don't need a permit (Vermont style carry laws), but you can get one if you want in order to have reciprocity. 

I live in Alaska and this is the first time I have heard of this. Could you please point to your sources for verification?
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on October 04, 2007, 12:04:05 pm
If you aren't super quick, have an extremely effective economy of motion, and haven't practiced the disarms/attacks a thousand times under extreme stress, I wouldn't even try it. You'll get killed and maybe get others around you killed. You best bet is to run your ass off.

Again, in the classroom setting, we're fish in a barrel.  2 of the 4 classrooms I'm in this semester don't even have windows to bail out, and there is nearly 0 cover - classes use fixed (bolted to the floor) tables or desks with a 6"x12" plywood top.

The more I think about it, the more appealing it is to just carry concealed without a permit...
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: yoplait on October 04, 2007, 12:24:32 pm

One benefit of the CCW is reciprocity with other states. I understand your sentiments but would rather have a permit in a shall issue state that is recognized in other states where it would be more difficult to get one. For instance, With only AZ and FL, one can carry concealed in the following states:


Alaska has the best of both.  You don't need a permit (Vermont style carry laws), but you can get one if you want in order to have reciprocity. 

I live in Alaska and this is the first time I have heard of this. Could you please point to your sources for verification?

"HB 102, signed by the Governor on June 11, 2003 changes Alaska Statute 11.61.220 to allow anyone 21 or older, who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may still obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states." -- http://www.dps.state.ak.us/PermitsLicensing/achp/

Here are the states that Alaska has reciprocity with: http://www.handgunlaw.us/maps/alaska_map.gif

You can still cary in WAY more places in NH than you can in Alaska...and New Hampshire is a freer state than Alaska
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: LibertyforLife on October 05, 2007, 08:52:09 am
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: GregH on November 08, 2007, 03:58:43 pm

And then of course the federal restrictions. NH's carry permit isn't draconic enough to exempt NH permit holders from the federal disarmed victim school zones.

Those were struck down as unconstitutional 12 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act)
I haven't seen one of those signs in years.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 08, 2007, 06:47:55 pm
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.

God granted you the right to carry a firearm? I must be behind on religous studies.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: Keyser Soce on November 08, 2007, 10:23:58 pm
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.

God granted you the right to carry a firearm? I must be behind on religous studies.

You seem to be behind on your liberty studies. The 2nd amendment affirms (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from the creator. Therefore, yes, god granted me the right to carry a firearm. Further, religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) and god have very little to do with each other.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: sj on November 09, 2007, 12:28:03 am
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.

God granted you the right to carry a firearm? I must be behind on religous studies.

You seem to be behind on your liberty studies. The 2nd amendment affirms (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from the creator. Therefore, yes, god granted me the right to carry a firearm. Further, religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) and god have very little to do with each other.

+1

The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to guns, but guns happen to be the best, most effective defensive weapon a citizen can carry.  The right to keep and bear arms derives from the basic human right to protect one's life, liberty and property (since citizens have the right to DEFEND themselves, I don't believe citizens have the right to purely offensive weapons that have no defensive use, such as atomic weapons).
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: Keyser Soce on November 09, 2007, 04:50:15 am
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.

God granted you the right to carry a firearm? I must be behind on religous studies.

You seem to be behind on your liberty studies. The 2nd amendment affirms (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from the creator. Therefore, yes, god granted me the right to carry a firearm. Further, religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) and god have very little to do with each other.

+1

The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to guns, but guns happen to be the best, most effective defensive weapon a citizen can carry.  The right to keep and bear arms derives from the basic human right to protect one's life, liberty and property (since citizens have the right to DEFEND themselves, I don't believe citizens have the right to purely offensive weapons that have no defensive use, such as atomic weapons).

Nuclear weapons do have a defensive use. The philosophy was called m.a.d. mutual assured destruction. The only thing keeping the Russians from launching on us was the knowledge that we would return fire. Thus they had defensive value with no intention of an offensive launch. Also in the book snow crash, the government is trying to kill this guy but can't because he rides around with a nuke in his motorcycle sidecar and the detonator linked to his heartbeat. This creates other problems if he dies in a bike wreck but the point is he was using it defensively. This is a great topic for fun discussion. I have a buddy who always brings it up when discussing anarchy.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: error on November 09, 2007, 03:11:52 pm
I probably wouldn't want a nuclear weapon, since your insurance rates will go WAY up and you'll have a hard time getting insurance at all. But I still support the right of the people to own one.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: NHArticleTen on November 10, 2007, 07:50:17 am
I probably wouldn't want a nuclear weapon, since your insurance rates will go WAY up and you'll have a hard time getting insurance at all. But I still support the right of the people to own one.

Agreed.

The Second Amendment acknowledges a human right.  The object of the human right of effective defense would be to "keep and bear" any "arms"(including nuclear) for effective defense against those who would use the same type of "arms" offensively.

Also, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which "limits" the Second Amendment.  You cannot "take away" a human right.  Aggressors may physically "deny" you that human right, but that doesn't mean the human right somehow doesn't exist or apply to you at that point.

For example, if one person feels "threatened" by another person they can ask the "government" "gang with guns" to physically take away the defensive arms of another person.  This leaves that other person defenseless against the other 5,999,999,999 people on the planet.

Go figure...

If there is no Corpus Delicti...
There is no crime...

Poor taste and bad judgment in the selection and usage of mere words of any language do NOT constitute a Corpus Delicti...

Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on November 10, 2007, 01:47:43 pm
This is one case where I think a limit to our right to self-defense is rightly limited.  There has to be some logical limitation to the definition of 'arms.'

Life on this planet would quickly cease to exist if everyone carried around a suitcase nuke.

I do think, however, that the people should be equally armed compared to their government.  The solution is not to allow each person to carry a nuke, but instead to keep them away from our government.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: frankwtodd on November 10, 2007, 04:41:58 pm
I've always thought the best way to settle the nuke ownership as a second amendment right would be to allow citizens to have any weapon that a police SWAT team is allowed to have. That would limit the ownership of nukes to governments, but you could still get a nice tank, hand grenades, and full auto toys. Just a thought.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 10, 2007, 05:07:59 pm
No doubt about it, thats why I'm moving. I like the idea of not having to have a license to carry something that is my God granted right to carry.

God granted you the right to carry a firearm? I must be behind on religous studies.

You seem to be behind on your liberty studies. The 2nd amendment affirms (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms. The Declaration of Independence declares that rights come from the creator. Therefore, yes, god granted me the right to carry a firearm. Further, religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) and god have very little to do with each other.

LOL... Liberty Studies.
The creator gave you the 'essence of life'... that is the thing that science can not recreate, a soul if you will.
The creator gave you freedom of will... this is where the concept of liberty comes from.
The right to property outside the commonality is largely European... but is considered important for equality, due to the fact that only nobility could previously own land privately.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: RangerProbst on November 10, 2007, 10:18:54 pm
We are supposed to be a nation of laws and the first law written about our right to bear arms was very clear:

"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. "

Infringed being the key word. What does it mean exactly?

in·fringe       (ĭn-frĭnj')  Pronunciation Key 
v.   in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.   tr.
   1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
   2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v.   intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

To "encroach" upon our right to bear arms is wrong. Our right has already been infringed. Our rights have already been violated.

Article VI, clause 2 reads...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In other words, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We have the right to bear arms and that right "shall not be infringed," period. What is there to debate?

Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 11, 2007, 07:31:13 am
The debate is whether the document is sovereign or theological, and thus the right. Its important, because some do not believe in the US Constitution, and no other US sovereign document has such a statement. It was not in the original body of the US Constitution, and was added under amendment to gain ratification.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: lasse on November 11, 2007, 08:08:54 am
The debate is whether the document is sovereign or theological, and thus the right. Its important, because some do not believe in the US Constitution, and no other US sovereign document has such a statement. It was not in the original body of the US Constitution, and was added under amendment to gain ratification.
Who cares? The Constitution of New Hampshire has an even clearer statement.

Quote
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Who's the militia now?

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 11, 2007, 09:00:19 am
The debate is not whether it exists... but the power from which it sprung. It exists in sovereign documents only.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: NHArticleTen on November 11, 2007, 09:15:39 am
This is one case where I think a limit to our right to self-defense is rightly limited.  There has to be some logical limitation to the definition of 'arms.'

Life on this planet would quickly cease to exist if everyone carried around a suitcase nuke.

I do think, however, that the people should be equally armed compared to their government.  The solution is not to allow each person to carry a nuke, but instead to keep them away from our government.

While I would tend to agree that it might be a little uncomfortable for you if your next door neighbor had a "nuke"...
There is NO way to prevent or restrict the manufacture and/or possession ultimately, except to murder other sovereign planetary inhabitants if they manufacture and/or possess "nukes"...or, for that matter...anything that we feel "uncomfortable" with them manufacturing and/or possessing...

This is the mentality of some who beat the war drum...
They say "we must keep others from having certain weapons that could be used both defensively...and offensively...

You stated that people should be equally armed compared to their government...but I disagree...
We The People should ALWAYS be armed to a much greater extent than our "public servants"...those given the "privilege" of serving We The People...

Instead, we somehow attempt to give the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to others...and have those others rob,steal,rape,kidnap,torture,murder, and commit genocide in a twisted attempt to force our "will" upon other sovereign planetary inhabitants...

Obviously this is NEVER "legitimate"...
It boils down to "gangs with guns"...

We can trace this aggression/force/fraud back through all of recorded history...
It didn't start yesterday...and it's not going to end tomorrow...

The global power elite have maintained their control over most of the planet for centuries...
They are NOT going to give that up...willingly...ever...

Since most of us are physically "occupying" the portion of this planet called "The United States of America" I will use a recent example...

The war of northern aggression showed that, even 150 years ago, those occupying this part of the planet could be divided and conquered in relatively short order...

Brothers killed brothers, fathers killed sons, and sons killed fathers...

Willing pawns of the global power elite...

And the struggle continues...

I wish I was wrong, but I truly believe when the artillery starts rolling through the streets of this country...

Brothers, fathers, and sons will turn upon each other again...

And the bloodbath will make the war of northern aggression look like a Sunday Social...

Well, at least we've still got baseball, apple pie, and chevrolet...

Enjoy!
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 11, 2007, 11:18:28 am
War of Northern Aggression? LOL.
Is there such a thing as a non-aggressive war?

I believe the argument for those using this term would be to return to the Articles of Confederation, unfortunately they do not contain the Bill of Rights. Or maybe prior to that with each State being a true Republic without an umbrella document.

The last being vastly acceptable to both Canada and Mexico... as there is some annexed real estate they would like returned.
Title: Re: question about firearms laws
Post by: CA_Libertarian on November 11, 2007, 02:12:53 pm
This is one case where I think a limit to our right to self-defense is rightly limited.  There has to be some logical limitation to the definition of 'arms.'

Life on this planet would quickly cease to exist if everyone carried around a suitcase nuke.

I do think, however, that the people should be equally armed compared to their government.  The solution is not to allow each person to carry a nuke, but instead to keep them away from our government.

While I would tend to agree that it might be a little uncomfortable for you if your next door neighbor had a "nuke"...
There is NO way to prevent or restrict the manufacture and/or possession ultimately, except to murder other sovereign planetary inhabitants if they manufacture and/or possess "nukes"...or, for that matter...anything that we feel "uncomfortable" with them manufacturing and/or possessing...

There is no way to use WMDs without harming innocent bystanders.  This means that any 'defensive' use would result in an act of aggression.  There is also very little one can do if they are a victim of someone with a WMD.  Body armor won't stop you from being vaporized by a nuke.  Therefore, WMDs have no value for self defense.

If someone is attempting to acquire a WMD, I view that as the equivalent of them shooting a gun randomly in a crowded mall.  They may not hit anybody, but there is such high potential for injury/death to another person that it is proper to use force to stop that person.  If one's actions will logically only lead to injury/death of innocent bystanders, it is just to stop them.