Police officers view on Semi-auto guns

[the_sandman_454]

The Second Amendment as a collective right rather than an individual right is silly at best. Does the First Amendment apply to some or all people? Does the Fourth? How about the Fifth? The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals. It's a pretty dangerous road to travel down distinguishing which rights who gets and which rights aren't really rights.

The 5th Circuit Court just got it right, which we'll have to wait for the appeals process of course, but 40+ pages of majority opinion discussing the reasons the Second Amendment applies to all individuals.

The intent (of the Second Amendment) was that individuals have not only the right but an obligation (hence militia: think Switzerland) to own military grade arms, for defense of self and nation against criminals and other abusers of power.

 

[cp1969]

The intent (of the Second Amendment) was that individuals have not only the right but an obligation (hence militia: think Switzerland) to own military grade arms, for defense of self and nation against criminals and other abusers of power.

I am in your camp on this, but obviously other people, who have far more influence than me, feel otherwise. If not, the assault weapons ban, which will more than likely be resurrected by the new Democratically-controlled Congress, would have been struck down as unconstituional shortly after it was enacted. Same way with the law enacted in 1934 that 'infringed' private ownership of full-auto weapons or the D.C. handgun ban. All should have been ruled unconstitutional within days of their signing.

Even now, in the state where I live, which just passed concealed carry last year, cities are taking it upon themselves to pass laws which continue to make it illegal to carry in their jurisdictions which is completely contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the concealed carry law as it was passed. Yet, I hear of no action being taken by the attorney general. Someone is going to have to violate one of these bans then appeal it to a higher court. Even then, the outcome is not assured.

I don't get it. The courts read rights into certain amendments (notably the 14th) where no such language exists but blatantly ignore the plain language in the 2nd.

 

[QueBota]

The fine gentlemen from my home state of Pennsylvania got it right when they drafted the State Constitution, article 1, section 21 reads:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

That seems to be pretty clear. The U.S. Constitution Second Amendment is just as clear except to folks who would like to argue about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Here are some examples from other State Constitutions, many from the same time period as the U.S. Constitution.

Texas state constitution:

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Maine State Constitution:

Article 1, Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Vermont State Constitution:

Ch. 1, Art. 16 That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept
up; and that the military should be kept under strict sub-
ordination to and governed by the civil power.

New Hampshire State Constitution:

Part 1, [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Connecticut State Constitution:

Art 1, SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Rhode Island State Constitution:

Art. 1, Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and even the Massachusetts State Constitution:

Pt. 1, Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

My current state of residence, Maryland (The Free State), has no such provision in its Constitution, and the previous legislature shot down an attempt to ammend such language to the Constitution.

Dave

 

[Podunkadunk]

Great Posts guys! A lot of thinking going on...you don't have to agree/disagree, but at least you are aware of it and can form your own opinions. Otherwise, some chucklehead in D.C. will make it for you and without asking you about it.

Catman1,
The person that couldn't count change for the 10 bucks, probably wasn't taught how to count change. At least I know that when I was in school, it wasn't ever taught. My aunt taught me. My grandmother said they used to teach them how to do that when she was in school...they didn't have calculators back then or digi cash registers. Just a thought. Kids today are a lot smarter than what we often give them credit for. I'm not attacking your position, please don't misconstrue, just making an observation.

2nd Amendment:
The well regulated militia comment in the amendment is what gives sally-soccer-mom liberals there bargaining power with eroding the amendment. That part should have been put in it's own sentence or paragraph. It should have read something like:

The right of the people to own a firearm shall not be infringed!

The right of the people to participate in a well regulated militia shall not be infringed!

Yada, yada ya. Nuff said. The liberals wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Heck, it was well over 200 years ago. It probably was "cut and dry" for their times. Because there is reasonable doubt in their meaning with the militia comment, the Supreme Court leaves it alone.


Good day to all,
Podunk.

 

[ldabe]

I am a former Police Officer and I use to belong to the NRA.
But NO MORE!
They have become way too political and bend over way too much.
I now am a member of the Gun Owners of America (GOA).
Much stronger stance, though if it were me leading the charge I would not buckle under for anything less than exactly what the 2nd Amendment RIGHT says.
And if that is not enough I'll also go with Luke 22.
Since the V-Tech incident, you may want to stay abreast of HR 297 and join the GOA.
Gun Owners of America has posted an analysis of HR 297 at
FIREARMS LEGISLATION IN THE 110th CONGRESS on its website, showing how the
bill will target millions of law-abiding gun owners.

 

[Bird]

I think the vast majority of our members have strong pro-gun opinions, but this thread seems to be almost entirely political and I think it's time to close it.