Guy arrested for being responsible gun owner

[KL9 F4i]

that's Federalism.

Personally, I prefer the ability to "vote with my feet" (i.e. if I don't like OH laws, I can move to IN). If you don't like NJ's gun laws, don't live there, and don't travel there.

It's a given that not everyone will agree - why can't like-minds congregate to a particular ultra-liberal state and have retarded gun laws? I'd rather have them all in NJ than annoying gun owners in every state.

I like this idea! lets move all anti-gunners and the "lets save the trees" people to the borders and see how they fair! Especially down south near mexico! The cartels and crime and everyone will wipe them out due to the fact the are incapable of defending themselves. Once the they are wiped out the good ole' americans can come in and clean the parasites of this nation out and we can live happily ever after!

[C-bus]

No you're wrong. It's all politics like I've already mentioned. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to address the right to bear arms in defense of ones self or property. It's purely for what it says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,.." Madison intended there be protection for militia's so they wouldn't be disarmed and so that the people and states could defend themselves from a federal military if needed.

The founders and original writers never imagined they would need to address the personal right to own a firearm in the Constitution. Madison himself noted in writings that the government shouldn't ever consider laws keeping someone from owning weapons for self defense and in defense of property. It was a given in those times with no laws regulating firearms for those sorts of things.

As was previously mentioned, it (like others) is being used to address things it was never meant to address. In the end it makes for a powerful political and business tool. Nothing like a little grey area and motive for people to abuse the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment, like all of the amendments contained in the bill of rights is a protection of the citizen from the government. Period. The right to bear arms in order to defend against an oppressive government. The right to form a militia to guard against oppressive government. The right to speak out against government. The writers did not want another tyrannical situation like the one from which they just freed themselves. Every attempt at a governmental restriction of any of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. Those rights are to be respected and upheld at face-value and not modernized or interpreted. The constitution establishes a mechanism for repealing amendments, so if that is desired, then Congress must go through THAT process.

[fusion]

The "militia" is the people. You, me, IP.... They felt standing armies were dangerous and it was the duty of the people, all the people to defend themselves against anything that could destroy life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Exactly but it's as a militia the 2nd refers to has nothing to do with things like being able to CCW or protect your personal property. It's meant as protection against a tyrannical, oppressive or what have you government.

The 2nd amendment, like all of the amendments contained in the bill of rights is a protection of the citizen from the government. Period. The right to bear arms in order to defend against an oppressive government. The right to form a militia to guard against oppressive government. The right to speak out against government. The writers did not want another tyrannical situation like the one from which they just freed themselves. Every attempt at a governmental restriction of any of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. Those rights are to be respected and upheld at face-value and not modernized or interpreted. The constitution establishes a mechanism for repealing amendments, so if that is desired, then Congress must go through THAT process.

Exactly, but they won't. Too many people have too much too loose if they clarify things. It's sad really. While people are arguing over things the 2nd was never meant to address (personal defense,...) the government has already taking away the ability that right was meant to protect.

Edited November 25, 2010 by fusion

[C-bus]

Exactly but it's as a militia the 2nd refers to has nothing to do with things like being able to CCW or protect your personal property. It's meant as protection against a tyrannical, oppressive or what have you government.

Exactly, but they won't. Too many people have too much too loose if they clarify things. It's sad really. While people are arguing over things the 2nd was never meant to address (personal defense,...) the government has already taking away the ability that right was meant to protect.

Personal defense is implicit in the wording of the 2nd as well as the right to pursue happiness without being killed. Concealed Carry shouldn't be debated as the framers would not have dreamed of a free society without the ability to defend one's self.

[fusion]

Personal defense is implicit in the wording of the 2nd as well as the right to pursue happiness without being killed. Concealed Carry shouldn't be debated as the framers would not have dreamed of a free society without the ability to defend one's self.

No it's not. It's not even considered. The framers (Madison) feared a federal military being more powerful than the people or state militias. They believed the addition of the 2nd would keep military-like power on the side of the people and prevent the types of laws that were passed in Britain. Earlier versions of the 2nd even explicitly mentioned "military service." It was about stocking arms and ammo for defense against the government or foreign invaders, about the government or rich not being able to disarm the populace, not about shooting the local cattle thief.

Personal defense was a separate issue and kind of a given of the day with or without the 2nd. Most people of the day owned firearms already if they wanted for various reasons. The framers made note that they should not pass laws that would prevent citizens from protecting themselves or their property.

[fusion]

...the second part.

As long as you keep believing that tired crap, politicians and business have you right were they want you.

The second part is necessary for the first part. They have right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Madison's only concern was about keeping the people armed for a militia/military. Has zero to do with personal defense.

[Ryan_c_F]

No it's not. It's not even considered. The framers (Madison) feared a federal military being more powerful than the people or state militias. They believed the addition of the 2nd would keep military-like power on the side of the people and prevent the types of laws that were passed in Britain. Earlier versions of the 2nd even explicitly mentioned "military service." It was about stocking arms and ammo for defense against the government or foreign invaders, about the government or rich not being able to disarm the populace, not about shooting the local cattle thief.

Personal defense was a separate issue and kind of a given of the day with or without the 2nd. Most people of the day owned firearms already if they wanted for various reasons. The framers made note that they should not pass laws that would prevent citizens from protecting themselves or their property.

You're both right...

It wasn't considered because it was implicit that people here would always have the right to defend themselves.

Any judge that made a California-style ruling... say, that a burglar would be able to sue if he hurt himself entering the home of a victim... wouldn't just have his verdict overturned. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. If he survived.

[owndjoo]

As long as you keep believing that tired crap, politicians and business have you right were they want you.

The second part is necessary for the first part. They have right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Madison's only concern was about keeping the people armed for a militia/military. Has zero to do with personal defense.

you are retarded. a persons right to bear arms, and the STATE's right to a militia have NOTHING to do with each other. The state can have a militia, and thus all the weaponry, training, camps, bases, etc. AND each and every individual has the right to bear his or her OWN arms to defend their own property/selves. One doesn't need to be a member of a militia to bear arms. period.

[fusion]

you are retarded. a persons right to bear arms, and the STATE's right to a militia have NOTHING to do with each other. The state can have a militia, and thus all the weaponry, training, camps, bases, etc. AND each and every individual has the right to bear his or her OWN arms to defend their own property/selves. One doesn't need to be a member of a militia to bear arms. period.

and you're an illiterate dumb fuck. What's your point?

[C-bus]

As long as you keep believing that tired crap, politicians and business have you right were they want you.

The second part is necessary for the first part. They have right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia. Madison's only concern was about keeping the people armed for a militia/military. Has zero to do with personal defense.

Actually, quite incorrect. The bill of rights protects the freedoms of the people (at that time, the state was the people but have since transformed into mini-feds) as well as the individual person. As long as the supreme court agrees with that sentiment, I guess I can live with the fact that the token lib on ordn doesn't. Again, Congress is welcome to ratify an amendment restricting personal firearm ownership. They are also welcome to sign UN small-arms treaties. Baby blue shows up better in the Leupold.

[chevysoldier]

Again, Congress is welcome to ratify an amendment restricting personal firearm ownership.

Yeah, I'd like to see the American response to that.

[John]

thats what you get for calling the cops in the first place. thanks for the "help" guys.

[Gump]

NRA is on this.

Convicted for Transporting Guns While Moving, N.J. Gun Owner Seeks Justice: In a case that has drawn national attention, a New Jersey gun owner has been sentenced to seven years in prison for having two unloaded, cased handguns in his car trunk while moving to a new home.

[chevysoldier]

NRA is on this.

Convicted for Transporting Guns While Moving, N.J. Gun Owner Seeks Justice: In a case that has drawn national attention, a New Jersey gun owner has been sentenced to seven years in prison for having two unloaded, cased handguns in his car trunk while moving to a new home.

Hopefully they get it overturned and the guy gets compensated from the judges own pockets.

[jschaf]

WTF? I met a guy in Texas that was driving in New Jersey & got 2 years in jail in New York for an unregistered handgun. He had the unfortunate experience of driving on the same road that a presidental motorcade was on & then getting pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Hope everybody that reads this has better luck.