Some jurisdictions require that you attend a safety class and some judges will order the local police department to inspect your home security and require you to have a safe to store your pistolas.

Good point. Here its legal to open carry almost everywhere to my knowledge. It never phased me growing up to walk down my road to go hunting carrying my AR15 or AK. I fired thousands of rounds in my backyard growing up and the neighbors never complained that 50 meters next to them was a mini-gunnery exercise. My friends who do own Class III weapons have no issue with firing them in their backyard either - seems neighbors are used to the sound of freedom - in belt fed form. Then again, this is the land of Bushmaster, Small Arms Review, HMHS machine gun shoots, and a dozen Class III dealers. I'm trying to think of someone who does NOT own a gun in this state - wait, nevermind... we have our share of trash to.

Then they have overstepped their authority. The only thing that can change the enumerated powers to the govt. or the enumerated rights of the people is a Constitutional Amendment.



The Supreme court IS NOT the final authority. Our Constitution is based on natural law, the "preface" if you will is the Declaration of Independance.  



Oh gosh, I'll try. The whole idea of American govt. is that the govt. is slave to the people, not the other way around. The founders recognized a higher authority than govt., or man's "law". God. Allow me to illustrate from the Declaration;

[b]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are [red]endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[/red][/b]

Some of these rights were enumerated in the "Bill of Rights".

[b]that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. [red]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers[/red][/b]

"Just powers". Any unjust power, (or law), contrary to an "inalienable" right, is illegitimate govt.

[b] from the consent of the governed. That [red]whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,[/red] and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness[/b]

An "inalienable" right, or that which is given by God, cannot be taken by man, or govt. To attempt to do so, is to attempt to enslave someone, and can be lawfully resisted.

As a "Constitutional scholor", and law student, you are well aware that federal court judges decide what is a defense, and what is not. In other words, the judge decides what a jury will hear, and what it will not. The system is rigged. There are some here who will allow themselves, and their posterity's freedoms to be sold out. I'm not one of them. God willing, there will be no court appearance by me.....

I sure hope that wasn't your best shot at my arguement......

For all you "straight arrow" types who criticize this guy for 1) having an unlicensed handgun and 2) using it in self defense in his own home, I want to know if you're just being sticklers for detail or if you're spineless.

A permit to own a gun?  What the hell?  I know it's not a new law, but can anybody here make a case that it's right?  I can see the argument for requiring a permit to carry in public, but W(hy)TF do you need a permit to keep a gun at home?

And what is up with this "he should have used his shotgun" crap?  No shit, he should have.  In retrospect, I'm sure even he agrees.  Hindsight is so much better than the tunnel vision you have when some POS is busting through your window!  1) the perp would most likely be dead, and 2) he wouldn't be facing charges for defending his life in his own home.  As it stands, the victim is alive, and that might not be the case if he'd taken the extra time to get his shotgun.

Don't you armchair quarterbacks realize that there is a big difference between what is legal and what is right?  Or don't you fvcking care?

Liberty, that's the only possible shot at your argument:  "I don't care what's right, papa government will spank me if I don't do what he says."

[V]

Ahhhh yes, there it is, the old liberal trick of demonizing your opponent as you go down in flames.....They teach ya that in your philosophy and ConLaw classes??? Ya oughta get your ass out of left wing schools, and into the patriot movement......
No! never mind, stay where you are. Enjoy your chains.

I love to live in a state where I can carry a loaded pistol in my truck, because the state views my vehicle and my place of business as an extension of my living room.

The bottom line here is that this guy did exactly what the second amendment says we have the right to do. Yeah, maybe he should have used a better gun and/or moved to a less restrictive state. The fact that he didn't suggests that he has something that a few members of this site may be lacking: balls.

I thought that the purpose of the federal government was to make sure that the states did not violate anyone's rights. Like during the civil rights movement when the federal government forced certain states to recognize the rights of black people. Now they can say that it's just fine if the states restrict other rights. It doesn't make much sense.

Haven't they used license BS to restrict rights before? They make the charges sound better by saying that he isn't being arrested just because he had a gun, but because he didn't get the license. This, of course, ignores what's required to get a license, if it's possible at all.

I've seen some dipshit arguements in my time, but this takes the cake. Allow me to suggest you read Federalist #81, 5th paragraph or thereabouts.



No, we disagree as to whether or not the founders enumerated "God given" rights, or whether rights are granted by govt., as you think.



And when contrary to the LETTER of the Constitution, and natural rights, mean nothing.



It's already in the 2nd, but it's not good enough for you and your liberal professors.....

And the founders knew there were other means to "remedy the situation".

I was under the impression the Supreme Court decided that what you posit the second amendment stands for is in fact not the case (in US v. Miller, to which the 9th circuit has recently distinguished).

Your guess is as good as mine.  The only reason I heard that makes sense is that after 9-11, NYers were "encouraged" to purchase firearms.  In either case I won't second guess a good thing.  All I know is one week he tells me he put in his paperwork for a target permit, and 2 weeks later he's showing me a brand new Berretta.  Before that, the fastest I saw a friend get a permit was 3 months.  This was in Nassau County.  Then again, a 3rd friend's application took almost a year, because his paperwork was "lost."

Your "case law", and "philosophical principles" mean nothing in the face of the writings of the founders, and the plain letter of the Constitution.



But much to the chagrin of you and others, the Bill of Rights is there isn't it? And as to your last sentence, see Amendement 10.



Surely you jest!! Most of the Supreme court justices were just like the 3 ninth circut judges who issued the second amendment opinion recently. Did you read it?? That the best ya got? Joe Schmoe sittin' on a bar stool could do better than that! Ever read any bios of former justices? I know several said later they made decisions on how they "felt", not what the Constitution said...

The same almighty, omniscient State so fondly spoken of here once allowed laws in the South prohibiting certain races from owning firearms. But since it is our duty to obey the law to the letter - I guess we should be happy that Black Americans could NOT own firearms for years. God forbid anyone oppose and disobey corrupt laws written by corrupt men.

I don't see how the 9 Supreme Court Justices are magically "superior" in their thought process to everyone else. They too are fallible humans driven by self interest at times. Especially, when they all get appointed through our corrupt Congress and the Executive branch. And there are some extremely liberal judges on the court today. Not unlike the Judges in Kalifornistan - where Kangaroo Courts run the day.


Originally posted by Hiram Ranger:

"I believe there must be a compelling state interest to regulate".....The Constitution and its common sense reading? Sounds like a Tory from the 1770's speaking - not even an ardent Federalist would say that.

On compelling interest to regulate. Regulate my Freedom of Speech? My RIGHT to keep and bear arms? Or perhaps my right from unreasonable search and seizures? I challenge ANYONE to treat me or my family like a SUBJECT. Thank God my family was on the right side during 1776. They might be defined by yourself as criminals for they broke the laws of England many times and killed British soldiers following the King's orders. The concept that the King's law is all-powerful is NO different from the mindset that our current high court is infallible and must be adhered to at all costs. Yet, the thought of civil disobedience here in modern times is WRONG?

What country has this turned into? What part of "DO NOT INFRINGE" is not registering with some people...errrr...SHEEPLE?

Read Commen Sense by Thomas Payne - it is truly enlightening. An excellent book for everyone. The Federalist and AntiFederalist Papers are good as well. Assuming one of course has already studied the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

For anybody who isn't paying attention, we all live in states where we [b]can[/b] carry a loaded pistol in our vehicles or on our persons.  It's just a question of whether the [pathetic, left wing, bleeding heart] government du jour in some states recognizes our inherent right to do so.

And this arguing of constitutionality bores me.  I say fvck the 2nd ammendment.  (Yeah, there's the rum talking!)  The intention was good, but apparently the founders didn't dumb it down enough for your average jackass to understand.  [b]Our RKBA has nothing to do with any piece of paper or case law anywhere.  [red]It is inherent, and those of you who do not exercise it in defense of yourselves and those you love make me sick.[/red][/b]  If it requires a tax, fine, give to Caesar what is Caesar's; your family will appreciate you staying out of jail.  But if it is outright banned, fvck those who ban it.

I'll probably regret posting that in the morning, but I'll be d___ed if I edit it, because it's true!