• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Supreme Court...........Gun Rights

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
The scary part is that the right to have and keep guns is even questioned..
I agree, shouldn't be any question about the right to keep and bear arms. I may be naive but I really can't see any police force that would enforce the collecting of arms from their own families/friends in America. If it ever came to that there would be a lot of bloodshed for sure.
 

Mike

Well-known member
No, there should be no question of the right to keep and bear arms.

But the Supreme Court have been led into a trap by the liberals.

The question is that can they be "Regulated" at a Federal or local level?

But since guns are not allowed in many State and County Courthouses and other public facilities, we already know the answer to that question.

To me no "Reasonable" decision can be made upon an "Unreasonable"
request.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
It's just imaginable that some cannot understand that no weapon commits a crime. I have no problem with permits, checking , and a waiting period but total removal will not stop crime - only stiff punishment! I think if we would do away with the consealed portion and if everyone was required to carry in the open you might see better results.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
The sad things is when they put all these restrictions on gunownership...permits etc, is that it gors from a right to a privelidge. It is a RIGHT
 

Mike

Well-known member
passin thru said:
The sad things is when they put all these restrictions on gunownership...permits etc, is that it gors from a right to a privelidge. It is a RIGHT

You cannot take away a "Right", but you can remove a "Privilege".

Does an ex-felon who has commited a crime with a gun still have that "Right"?

Or did he lose his "Privilege"?

Just thinking out loud here.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike
Does an ex-felon who has commited a crime with a gun still have that "Right"?

Or did he lose his "Privilege"?

"To be eligible to register to vote and participate in elections, you must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States of America, and not presently denied the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction"

rights are difficult.. if it is a right, it unfortunately should never be denied.. NO matter what..

do I want felons to have the right to vote.. no
do I want felons to own guns .. again NO..

Heck if I had my way all felons would be deported to Iraq...

but our Constitution should not be subject to change on a whim..
 

MoGal

Well-known member
TSR said:
Steve said:
The scary part is that the right to have and keep guns is even questioned..
I agree, shouldn't be any question about the right to keep and bear arms. I may be naive but I really can't see any police force that would enforce the collecting of arms from their own families/friends in America. If it ever came to that there would be a lot of bloodshed for sure.

Ahhh..... but you can go to www.whatdoesitmean.com and read "US plans for doomsday rule as British forces arrive in America".............. they plan on using Canadian/European military to control US.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Mike
Does an ex-felon who has commited a crime with a gun still have that "Right"?

Or did he lose his "Privilege"?

"To be eligible to register to vote and participate in elections, you must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States of America, and not presently denied the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction"

rights are difficult.. if it is a right, it unfortunately should never be denied.. NO matter what..

do I want felons to have the right to vote.. no
do I want felons to own guns .. again NO..

Heck if I had my way all felons would be deported to Iraq...

but our Constitution should not be subject to change on a whim..

Interestingly- the Montana Constitution restores a felons/prisoners rights once they have successfully completed their punishment/sentence/parole or probation...This does give them the right to vote- but does not give them the right to purchase or obtain a gun because in order to do so they would have to lie on and falsify the ATF form which asks if they have ever been convicted of a felony, etc....
It has became a grey area in this state when dealing with the ATF law when felons were found in possession of a weapon- and made it difficult to prosecute one when found...

But Montana leads the country (maybe world) on individual privacy and individual rights- the reason our Governor/state is leading the fight against GW's Orwellian plans of "Real ID" and "Mandatory cattle ID-NAIS" along with many other of GW's Constitution eroding plans he is promoting with the use of fearmongering thru his "Patriot" Act...
 

Mike

Well-known member
the reason our Governor/state is leading the fight against GW's Orwellian plans of "Real ID" and "Mandatory cattle ID-NAIS" along with many other of GW's Constitution eroding plans

I have read the "Unconstitutional" arguments against NAIS and they are kindergardenly ridiculous.

One example. How can anyone oppose the constitutionality of NAIS and not the "mandatory" use of any other alternative method of ID'ing cattle for movement tracking? Branding comes to mind.............

What about the tracking of automobile serial numbers by goverment agencies?

Is that unconstitutional too? :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
the reason our Governor/state is leading the fight against GW's Orwellian plans of "Real ID" and "Mandatory cattle ID-NAIS" along with many other of GW's Constitution eroding plans

I have read the "Unconstitutional" arguments against NAIS and they are kindergardenly ridiculous.

One example. How can anyone oppose the constitutionality of NAIS and not the "mandatory" use of any other alternative method of ID'ing cattle for movement tracking? Branding comes to mind.............

What about the tracking of automobile serial numbers by goverment agencies?

Is that unconstitutional too? :lol: :lol:

My problem with NAIS is not so much the constitutionality of it- which tho probably will be challenged if/when NAIS is mandated-- but more the States rights questions and the Federalist issues...Johanns created his own monster when he initially came out with this being a government "Mandate" and tried to tie it to a corporate monopoly ran by NCBA - rather than letting the states develop/keep their own systems- or allowing the free market dictate a system...The way the system is currently set up will create a monstrous federal bureaucracy- and/or a huge unfunded mandate on the states- or both.....
But if GW's era has been any example- that appears to be the new Republicanism---spend, spend, spend- even if you have no way to pay for it- and massive expansion of the Federal bureaucracy and power of the Federal government...

And I personally believe that once GW/Cheney are out of office- and many of these aides/bureaucrats/etal are no longer protected by a very questionable Executive privilege- and more of the facts come about how the Patriot Act was used/abused- you will find a bigger tide growing against such laws that hide behind the screen of protecting the populace while actually eroding the freedoms that have made this country so strong.....Some of its already coming to light with the Democratic controlled Congress's being able to do some oversight...
 

Latest posts

Top