Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: question about firearms laws  (Read 11501 times)

yoplait

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #30 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

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
Live free or die!

GregH

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #32 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
I haven't seen one of those signs in years.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #33 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.
Logged

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #35 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).
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

error

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 693
  • Department of Homeland Stupidity
    • U.S. Department of Homeland Stupidity
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #37 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.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #38 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...

CA_Libertarian

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
  • FSP Member 2007
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)

frankwtodd

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Fortuna Favet Fortibus!
    • Homepage
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #41 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.
Logged

RangerProbst

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #42 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?

Logged
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." - Thomas Jefferson

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

lasse

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
Re: question about firearms laws
« Reply #44 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
Logged
(not that lasse, the other lasse)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil - Isaiah 5:20
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up