Well, kind of. It is over the ability to carry a concealed firearm in a park.
The State of Ohio passed a law that lists places that concealed carry permitholders cannot carry. One of those NOT listed was a park.
By state law, a person with a concealed carry permit could, therefore, carry in a park. Except in Clyde Ohio, where they've decided that they don't want people to carry in parks. (Apparently, only criminals should be armd on parks, for the safety of the criminal)
So the city was sued, and won. Then the case was appeals and the city lost. Now the case is up for appeal in the state's highest court.
In the article, there is a quote from an anti-gun nut, under the guise of someone 'against gun violence." (Generally, that means they're just against guns.)
They said that she "notices that gun owners have "an extra measure of fear than a lot of people," adding that the "good guys versus bad guys" argument for carrying is weak."
Everyone tends to believe that until they're the victim of a crime. Then it is pretty easy to determine the difference between a good and a bad person. The bad people use weapons to rob, rape or kill you. (or all three!) . .. the good people would use a firearm to defend themselves from the bad.
Of course, the anti-gun forces have no problem with making a criminal into a victim and a gun owner into a criminal.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If the City wins at the Supreme Court level and they are allowed to ban concealed carry in Parks there will be nothing to keep them from banning concealed carry everywhere. Whatever logic they used to justify banning concealed carry in parks could easily be extended to banning concealed carry on public streets which would make it pretty much impossible to take your gun anywhere and would have the effect of being a complete prohibition.
It would make a mockery of the State's ability to establish policy for the State.
that's basically it. If the cities are allowed to impose more restrictive carry regulations than the state, it essentially nullifies the concealed carry permit... You'd never know what is legal in whatever town you're traveling through.
You'd see legal conceald carry permit holders arrested for unlawful possession of their own firearm, for doing something that, 20 miles away, is perfectly legal under the same permit
That is, generally, called undue hardship on the part of the city, and should always be struck down.
All of it, however, is moot in light of the 2nd Amendment, which states that the government cannot infringe on the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.
I'm an odd duck in that I kind of support a national concealed carry permit, as long as it is sensible. We need to work on getting RID of grey areas in which gun owners can be criminalized for embracing their guarenteed rights.
Don't a lot of states have mutual respect and reciprocation agreements where the conceal carry permits of one state are honored in the reciprocating state?
This is not really much different then drivers licenses which are issued by a single state but honored by all 50 states.
I think the Constitution has a clause called the "Official Acts" clause where the acts, like marriage, drivers licenses, etc performed by one state are suppossed to be honored by all states. I'm surprised that this clause has not been used to challenge gun bans in some of the more restrictive states for people holding concealed carry permits in other states.
Yeah, a state can pick and choose other states. I can carry in PA, with my OK permit, but I can't carry in all the states along the way.
A national permit would erase all of those grey areas. My only fear is that they would take a California or New York State method and policy for concealed carry permits and apply them nationally, rather than a texas or virginia method.
Or face it, some people are obsessed with having a gun.
Read my blog!
The obsession is not to have a gun.
It is a RIGHT to have a gun.
The obsession is to get rid of guns. In which case, the citizens are unable to defend themselves from the criminals, who are armed illegally.
To say that people are obsessed with having a gun is like saying that people are obsessed with speaking or having a religion, or voting. It is a right.
I am obsessed with making sure that my right to protect my family is never taken away by people that think crime will suddenly stop if only there were no guns.
pffft!
Keep your hands off my metal.
that's why we love you m.
I agree with some of your points but not really all of them.
Wow, you really contributed to the discussion here.
That's the joy of the freedoms here in the United States. You're allowed to disagree and not get shot for it.
Though, if someone tries, you also have the right to keep and bear a firearm in self defense. (so far)
Though, perhaps you could elaborate on which points you don't agree with?
Either you arm everyone, or you disarm everyone.
If the rules allow for people to carry guns concealed, they really should allow them to carry these gun everywhere. The rule against carrying in public parks just make no sense.
However, it's far better if everyone were disarmed out in public. Just up the minimum prison sentence for anyone who carries a gun out in public to at least 15 years. You'd better believe even criminals would stop carrying guns if you get 15 years just getting caught with one when getting randomly frisked. Even in high drug crime areas, criminals are often caught with guns, but they never get much more than a slap on the wrist. Just up the ante, then no one would need to carry -- including cops.
Yes, because magically if non-criminals do not have guns, all the criminals will give up theirs and turn themselves in.
It's just like any other criminal activity. Up the ante, and criminals will react accordingly. Make it a high minimum sentence to have so and so grams of coke, the criminals react by making sure they have just under that amount of coke on their persons at all times.
Make a high minimum sentence for anything and the criminals will react accordingly.
History shows that your method has never worked.
apart from a prompt execution for capital offenses, threat of punishment does not keep a rapist or murderer from having a firearm.
Just keep raising the bar until you find a compromise solution that works.
And, of course no laws stop people who are determined to commit any crime, however, it does stop the majoity of criminals. The majority of criminals aren't out there committing crimes because they enjoy it, they do it because it serves a purpose, almost always financial.
Yeah, the washington DC gun ban has REALLY worked well for DC.
As has the San fran gun ban.
And we all know that gun crime is very low in cities like nyc and dallas, which work hard to create hardships for legal gun owners who have a permit from the state to carry concealed.
Don't forget crime free Chicago, and IL in general.
And the low crime rate in the cities in Wisconsin, the other state that doesn't allowed concealed carry.
Unless you're rooting against the american citizen and their protection against criminals, how can raising crime rates be a sign of it working?
I'm talking state laws or federal laws. Stopping just Wash D.C from getting guns is just not a great idea when you can go a couple miles out and pick up some.
Federal and state drug limits forced drug dealers to react accordingly. Depending on the state, drug dealers now do not loiter around liquor stores, will not sell drugs out of a car, stay 1000 feet away from schools, etc. There are all good things that were done simply because we've upped the ante.
Well, then look at the peaceful Sudan, in which citizens AREN'T being slaughtered in large numbers.
Remember that the sudan is a weapons-free country.
Or Japan, which is currently a gun free country, except the criminals, who just had another big shooting event to which their response if more gun control bills (even though it is currently illegal to own there)
Of course, England, a gun free country, still has high crime rates and has seen a HUGE increase in stabbings.
No matter how you try to twist it, taking the guns out of the hands of the responsible citizens just leads to bad times for the citizens and good times for the criminals.
Why do you support rapists and murderers? And if you think you don't, remember that it is the rapist and murderer who benefits from your anti-gun ways.
And if you REALLY think that drugs aren't dealt on school grounds, then you may be doing far too many of them.
I also don't advocate banning guns. I advocate banning carrying guns. I believe in the castle law, not conceiled weapons.
And the entire country of Japan's total deaths by guns is less than half that for the city of Detroit for the entire year. England's stabbing deaths are better than any the random deaths we have in the inner city. Just yesterday, a child was killed by a bullet going through two walls and into a bedroom after a gang fight. No matter how many times you throw a knife, it's not going to go through two walls.
And why do YOU support rapists and murderers? Why do you refuse to up the minimum sentences for all of these people instead of advocating for much, much tougher laws?
Keep AND BEAR.
I put that in caps, as I'm under the idea that you might not be able to read the fine print of the constitution, where it grants the right to keep AND BEAR firearms to the individual, specifically stating that it shall not be infringed.
And why do YOU support rapists and murderers? Why do you refuse to up the minimum sentences for all of these people instead of advocating for much, much tougher laws?
Umm.... I support executing rapists and murderers... I also support the citizen taking out their firearm and killing a rapist or murderer trying to rape or murder them. Nice attempt at reversing that one, but it doesn't work. You're the one more worried about a rape victim shooting a rapist than about a rapist raping a lady.
not, by definition a rape victim. And how do you define "trying"? I've never seen a clear-cut case where a woman hasn't been verified to be raped, but gets off scot-free because she shot a man she "thought" was going to rape her. This is why I adocate all places to have guns and bystander apathy laws. No one should carry on them.
Keep AND BEAR.
In the act of joining a MILITIA.
So you'd rather I wait until I've been raped, and then kill him?
Sorry, I don't buy it. I've been raped, and I'll tell you what, there is no mistaking being attacked or "thinking" you might be raped.
Unless there is clear intent, there is no good resolution in the courts. However, let me ask you, what happened to your rapist?
But if a crime has been committed, laws should exist to put that person away for life.
Intent is very clear in violent crimes like rape. There is no mistaking the intent, because it's not about sex; it's about power and control.
I never reported my rape; I was 15 at the time and I didn't tell anyone. He later was caught for doing the same to someone else. I wish I had come forward early enough to prevent the future crime.
If you truly are going to be a rape victim, you cannot allow the man to approach anywhere near you. It is not at all clear unless the man actually rapes the victim. In fact, if the "potential" victim shot her "potential" rapist, and there were no previous history between them, nor any witnesses, then in all cases I've heard of thus far, the woman is sent to prison.
You are woefully ignorant of the circumstances of rape. It's not about "not allowing them to approach you." A man can very easily overpower a woman, despite her best efforts to insist otherwise. I am very saddened to hear that you are in support of attackers, and would rather someone become a victim than defend themselves against harm.
Just to inform you that there is absolutely no clear cut situations where a woman can shoot a "potential" rapist.
You've never been a victim of a violent crime, or known a victim of violent crime.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Go volunteer at a shelter, and then come back and talk to me.
So, once again, she can't fight back until there's penetration?
until he ACTUALLY rapes her, she can't defend herself?
that's REALLY your point? It isn't rape until it is over? So, therefore, you can't defend yourself against rape until you've been raped?
But then, it'd be revenge, not defense. You can't defend yourself against an attack AFTER it has happened.
What kind of crazy world do YOU live in?
Nor am I asking anyone to.
There are many things you can never defend against. You could be whacked with a baseball bat in the back of the head when you're walking down the street because you just don't anticipate a person with a baseball bat hitting you with it. However, you can certainly prosecute the person after the fact. You can't just shoot everyone with a baseball bat walking downn the street.
Ahh, but if someone comes after you and pulls up a baseball bat, you can assume the intent to crack you in the head with it in an assault and, in saner states, can shoot them in self-defense as their action gives a reasonable peson the idea that their life is in danger.
You, however, are not reasonable, and apparently hold that a person can't defend themselves from a rapist or murderer until they're raped or dead. (and even then, they can't defend themselves, just call the cops)
Sorry. Someone tries to rape a woman. shoot them. Shoot to Kill.
is different that a woman shooting a stranger who just approaches her menacingly.
Right because menacing doesn't show intent.
Only physical contact can do that.
*rolls eyes*
.
Many states allow for the citizen in the case of violent crimes to assume intent.
That's why death threats are grounds for restraining orders, as well as illegal in some cases.
Someone breaks into my home here in this state, I'm allowed to assume that they can and will do me harm. I may then shoot them without verifying who they are or why they're there.
If someone tackles you and attempts to rape you, but hasn't pulled off your pants yet, you're AT LEAST the victim of an assault. In which case, you're allowed to defend yourself.
Do you really have any new points? or is it going to be the same "defend the criminal but criminalize the citizen" crap you always spew?
I am so sorry to hear that
Some of us would rather the young lady NOT be raped.
The life of the rapist comes in a VAST second to that of the lady that the rapist is trying to rape.
it is about what keeps the young lady from being raped.
When you shoot someone who hasn't raped you, you are not, by definition a rape victim
Ahh, so let them tear off your clothes and start raping you before you're allowed to pull out your firearm and defend yourself. How gracious of you. I'm sure that rape victims will feel safer knowing that you're obviously looking out for their safety.
Keep AND BEAR.
In the act of joining a MILITIA.
actually no, the quote is:
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.
I guess I don't see where the requirement to join a state run militia (i.e. national guard) is a requirement for 'the people' to keep and bear arms. I do see a requirement that the government can't infringe on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
but then, again, i'm not on the side of rapists and murderers.
Maybe I should help you rephrase:
The reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
You cannot seperate this sentence and say individuals keep and bear arms for any reason. The reason is clearly given.
I'm sure that rape victims will feel safer knowing that you're obviously looking out for their safety.
If they're rape victims, their safety has already been compromised. I adovcate for justice for these victims.
However, I don't think you're talking about rape victims, because in your view, everyone is a potential "victim." We have a nation of "victims."
sorry, you don't get to rephrase the Constitution, That isn't your role or responsibility, nor is it under your authority.
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
PEOPLE doesn't mean state. it doesn't mean militia members, it means people.
If "the people" means only those who are in the militia, then it has to apply to the rest as well.
only militia members, under your definition of 'the people' are allowed to have freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They're the only ones that get due process or a trial by jury. They're the only ones who get any rights guarenteed by the 9th and 10th amendments.
in fact, by your definition you apply to 'the people' in the second amendment, then the whole constitution only applies to militia members.
I adovcate for justice for these victims.
I advocate people defending themselves from the criminals who are trying to make them victims.
The same exact meaning of my rephrase exists, as is, in the Constitution.
only militia members, under your definition of 'the people' are allowed to have freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They're the only ones that get due process or a trial by jury. They're the only ones who get any rights guarenteed by the 9th and 10th amendments.
No, since the definition what the "people" means is clearly in the exact same sentence, "militias." People in the first admendment means all people since the reason for freedom of speech isn't because of forming militias. For gun ownership, the Constitution clearly state the reason for gun ownership IS for miltias.
The same exact meaning of my rephrase exists, as is, in the Constitution.
Yes, in Article 1, Section 8, where the roles and rights of the militia is states. not in the bill of rights, which focus on the right of the INDIVIDUAL, in every single of those 10 amendments.
No, since the definition what the "people" means is clearly in the exact same sentence, "militias."
No, because "the people" means "the people", as is shown by "the people" in most of the other Amendments, and variations on "the people" shown in the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
For gun ownership, the Constitution clearly state the reason for gun ownership IS for miltias.
No, it says that the purpose of gun ownership is for the people to keep and bear firearms. People should keep and bear firearms so that they, as armed citizens, can form militias apart from the National Guard (which isn't, by definition, a civilian militia).
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right of who? The People.
Which people? Well, according to the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Amenemdnets, called hte Bill of Rights, "the people" is the individual.
not a militia.
It either applies the same to all or to none.
Either the bill of rights applies to the individual or it applies to the militia.
You can't have it both ways.
means individuals. Unfortunately, it is part of the same sentence.
So it's actually only one way. It applies only to people for the purpose of militias. It says that. You can't suddenly ignore the militia part of the sentence in favor of the "people" part of the sentence. The whole sentence, as stated, applies to miltias.
And how do you define "trying"? I've never seen a clear-cut case where a woman hasn't been verified to be raped, but gets off scot-free because she shot a man she "thought" was going to rape her.
While it's not rape (it's supposedly an attempt at assault), look up Kim Anderson from Wapakoneta, Ohio. She shot her ex-husband eight times and got of "scott-free." She claims he tried to attack her, even though she had no physical signs of being attacked and her ex was found on the floor of the bedroom closet. The test showed that he was in a defensive position and on the floor for most of the shots. Basically, everything points to murder, yet she gets off because it's determined to be self-defense.
In the act of joining a MILITIA.
Militia - civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army (Princeton); in other words, civilian army.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As I understand it, she was able to prove there was a history between her and her husband. It's not a conceiled weapons situation where a man walks up to a woman and the woman shoots him because she might have been a potential rape victim.
Militia - civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army (Princeton); in other words, civilian army.
Right. Civilian army. We have guns solely for that purpose. Not to carry around personally.
Ohhhh.. I get it. So if it's a stranger, it's not ok... but if it's your husband, then you can shoot.
How silly.
But you won't get away with shooting a stranger unless there is clear cut intent. You cannot shoot a stranger who hasn't laid his hands on you, nor has a history with you, nor has been witnessed by anyone else. Otherwise, you will be jailed. You might be able to get away with it only if the person has a history of violence. But the intent has to be proved.
Good thing you're not a lawyer, you'd lose many cases when it came to self-defense.
Well, here anyway. You'd have been popular in soviet russia.
Sigh, find one case. Just one, where there is absolutely no physical contact, no witnesses, no criminal history and the woman walks free from killing a potential rapist. Then talk.
Go work in a rape shelter for a few months, then talk about how there is no way to determine intent until they're raping you.
Then talk.
I don't think you understand the difference between potential rape victims and rape victims. They are not one and the same.
Get a clue.
You're right. the potential rape victims manage to keep from becomming rape victims through self defense.
Every rape victim was a potential rape victim who was unable to defend themselves.
Your thinking is very dangerous.
A stranger can't be a rapist! Only a husband!
"Sorry ma'am, you didn't know the guy that was coming after you well enough to assume that he was going to rape you when he pulled you into a dark ally, threw you on the ground and took down his pants. Time to send you to jail for murder. If only you'd let him rape you, then you'd be able to call it self defense."
A stranger can't be a rapist! Only a husband!
Give me any situation where a stranger can be shot by a woman as a potential rapist if he hasn't laid his hands on her, nor has a history with the woman, nor was witnessed by anyone else. Please, name one.
He comes after her with a knife or gun and says "Hey Baby..."
Armed and dangerous.
Tell me one where the woman can get off scot-free without clearly estabilished intent.
Depends on the state.
My state says that if a reasonable person could reasonably assume that their life was in danger, they can shoot.
just because you prefer a mode of thought that supports the rapists and murderers rather than the citizens doesn't mean that we all have to.
How about we up the ante, AND allow citizens to keep their firearms to protect themselves against violent criminals who continue to disobey the law? We can do both, and thereby offer additional protection, and hopefully reduce violence.
Remember, leftfield is more afraid of a 21 year old attractive female having a firearm to protect her from rapists than he is afraid of the rapist who would rape and kill her.
He must be terrified of me then.
I turned 22 only a month ago, but the judge here in Saint Lawrence county wouldn't give me a concealed carry because of my prior experience with rape. He said I'd be more likely to kill an attacker and I told him, "Damn straight." (Basically).
"You can't have a gun to protect yourself from a rapist! You might hurt the rapist!"
"Um, Judge... that's kind of the point. Protection from rape. I'm not going to just lay there and take it."
If that really is the only reason for your denial. Assuming of course, you aren't in an area that is too anti-gun.
Liberal judge.
Tried getting help from the NRA. But tons of people having trouble getting concealed permit in my county, and nobody has been able to get past him once rejected since he got his position.
It costs more than $100 just to apply, and you don't get it back if you don't receive the permit.
Is there only one judge that decides this in your county or were you randomly assigned this particular judge?
Only one.
Just make sure it's not out in public.
infringement is infringement.
it isn't "Keep and Bear as long as you're in your home and no one else is arround except someone who is in the act of actually stabbing you or shooting you."
it says "Keep and Bear" and that said right shall NOT be infringed.
you don't get to trump the constitution because you're afraid that criminals would get hurt when they try to rape innocent women.
That certainly doesn't sound like it applies to everything, including trips to the mall.
No, it doesn't. rules and regulations applying to militas are in Article 1, Section 8, which explain the need for, and give the rights of, a Militia. There is no logical sense for applying a "militia only" non-individual right smack dab in the middle of a list of Amendments granted to the individual.
That's like having a book about vehicles and, rather than putting it in the chapter on cars, you put in a bit about seat belts in Mercury sables in the middle of a chapter about airplanes.
And, it has been ruled multiple times that the phrase "the people" located in the Second Amendment does not and can not mean anything different than all of the other uses of the phrase "the people," which all apply to the individual, not the state.
There is also no clause in that Second Amendment that restricts where you may carry and, in fact, states that the right to keep and bear can NOT be infringed upon.
You are, therefore, wholly wrong on both counts.
Considering the Wash D.C. ban was upheld for several decades now, it's certainly not at all clear that the right to bear arms is the right of the people or the individual.
You're actually wholly wrong. Saying that you aren't just makes you look silly.
Especially since the DC gun ban has been tossed out and it is the CITY that has appealed to the supreme court to uphold its unconstitutional law.
DECADES old? DC has been through many, many challanges, and this is the first time that an appeals court that ruled against DC, in a 2 to 1 vote. Does that sound at all like I'm that one that's wrong? No, there absolutely is no precedent saying the 2nd admendment is an individual or group right.
Now the Supreme Court has it, I wonder if they'll rule based on precedent, or rule based on conservatism. Unfortunately, it is unlikely, with the conservative majority that they care about past precedent.
DC hasn't been through 'many, many' challenges.
That you CONTINUE to ignore the 2nd Amendment's application to the individual is silly.
It has been ruled many times that when the Constitution uses the phrase "the people" that it applies to the individual. There is NO suggestion that the use of the prase "the people" is somehow used differently than in the amendments prior and after the 2nd Amendment...
Rules and Rights of the milita are granted in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution.... not in the 2nd Amendment.
In no way has it ever been intented that "the people" means "The states" . . . they had a different phrase for "the states" . . .. it was "the states".
When they referred to the individual, they used the term "the people"
Please explain how and why, despite repeated use of "the state" to mean the states and "the people" to mean the individuals, they somehow did a 180 degree reversal for that one Amendment?
Why do you believe we as individuals have a right to own firearms? The right to Keep and Bear are both in the same Amendment. You can't have it both ways.... either the individual can both keep AND bear firearms, or they cannot keep OR bear firearms.
Despite your desire for us to slide into the same gun free status as Darfur, world war 2 Germany, North korea, or china.... clearly wonderful places for a citizen to be in the left's eyes, You don't get to decide what the constitution means by taking one amendment out of context and applying meanings to phrases that are the opposite of the actual meaning as determined in all other parts of the constitution.
You. Are. Wholly. Wrong.
citizen. That's the only purpose of the 2nd admendment. I have a gun in case of mass revolt.
And once again, and I will say this the last time. I do not advocate a gun free status.
You. Are. Wholly. Wrong.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to solely serve the militia.
once again (third time now.), the Rights and Roles of militias are spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, spells out, specifically, the rights granted to "the people" (In fact, each Amendment specifically says some variation of "the people", "the person" or "the accused" or refers specifically to the individual.) There is NO reason to REMOTELY believe that, despite the other 9 rights recognzied in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the people.
You are not only WHOLLY wrong, you are WILFULLY wrong, and continue to spread lies about the constitution.
gun-free zones, or have regulated their citizens in gun ownership.
The Constitution also technically protects felons because they have full citizenship, yet, they also cannot own guns. if you say this is about all citizens owning guns, then all felons should own guns. That's wrong in my opinion.
Show me a gun free zone that has worked.
Seems to me that mass shootings tend to happen at schools, post offices, court houses.... not many take place at gun shops or gun shows.
A Felon loses their rights upon conviction.. technically all of them. Unless a state reinstates their rights by some process (which many do to different extents in different states) , they are not protected by the 2nd amendment, or any amendment for that matter. That's a side affect of being a felon.
States then give the rights back to the felon as they complete the terms of their punishments as the states see fit.
This is why sexual offenders are allowed to be tracked down to their address on public websites, why felons can't have guns and why most can't vote.
Please show me where in the Constitution where it says felons are to be denied Constitutional rights. If you care for a strict reading of the Constitution, then felons are supposed to participate freely as any other ctizen. This is why some advocacy groups are challanging court precedent on behalf of felons who did non-violent offenses.
Congress lacks the ability to forbid states from engaging in the disenfranchisement of felons.
This was proven via the ability to vote per Article 1, Section 2, in which states are allowed to determine who and how can vote, provided it is not based on reasons specifically listed in the Constitution (which would include age, race and gender)
so, you can't ban someone because they're under age 25, because the minimum age is 18.... you can't ban someone because they're a woman, nor can you ban someone who is Japanese.
But, because there is no specific Constitutional Amendment giving feleons the right to vote, the states are able to restrict voting.
This was the basis for many states to extend this to other rights as well, namely the 2nd Amendment. There are other rights legally restricted as well, such as the right to buy a home next to a school if you're a child molster. . . If you're a felon, the police are MUCH more free to randomly search you. It is up to the state. Most states give back nearly all rights upon exiting prison, other rights require a judge or the governor to give them back.
Such policies were upheld as constitutionally sound when the Supreme court heard the case of someone suing the state of Florida over feleons and their rights in 2005.
Now, as felons lose their rights, as the individual states see fit, they do not have a right to own firearms, if the states choose to restrict that right.
rights to protect their citizens.
Thank you so much. Case closed.
No, the state can restrict the constitutional rights of FELONS.... not of law abiding legal citizens.
you do have a wilfull retention problem, socialist.
of crimes are not legal citizens.
You have a reading comprehension problem, methinks.
The Constitution lets the states decide the status of felons when it comes to matters like firearm ownership and ability to vote.
That's how it is.
you're really trying hard to put me in a position where I say that the states can decide the status of law- abiding citizens when it comes to the bill of Rights, but it isn't going to work.
Read the 14th Amendment, specifically section 2. You'll see that the states are allowed to deny rights to criminals.
As for a federal ruling specific to firearms, see and read all of definition 20 and note that the jurisdiction (the state or federal government) can remove the right to own or possess firearms from someone who has been sentenced to jailtime of more than 1 year (which is all felonies, whether they serve that jailtime or are put on probation, as the state or federal courts see fit):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html
I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you again, but you're wholly wrong.
If someone is attacking you, shoot to kill. Ask questions later.
If someone is attacking you, turning you into a victim, they suspend their right ot life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You, however, upon becoming a victim, do not. You have full right to defend yourself from criminals, per the Constitution.
however, when have liberals cared about the constitution?
Liberals and Democrats, siding with America's Enemies since the end of world war 2.
No, I choose the third option.
you let the PEOPLE decide if they want to be armed or not.
Oddly enough, that coincides with the Constitution, which grants that right to choose to keep and bear if you wish.
Criminals won't stop carrying guns. They commit crimes like rape and murder... why do you think they'd care about crimes against carrying guns?
laws against having a gun only punishes the law abiding citizen, as the criminals do not follow such laws. It also disarms them, making them easier prey for the armed criminal.
as for 'slap on the wrist' . . . i would disagree. In my state, there is not only a HUGE prison stay for a felon with a firearm (which drug dealers are), but also a year per round found on their person. Figure a 10 to 15 round mag, and there's your 15 year prison sentence, and it is already the law.
And they already ignore it.
Arm the citizens that choose to be armed. Let them carry anywhere and everywhere. let them shoot criminals that try to make them a victim of a crime.
THAT is how crime goes down.
If an increse of guns creates an increase of violence, explain why there are more school mass killings than mass killings at NRA events and gun shows.
So you are okay with people getting randomly frisked? Oh dear Lord.
Sure, because people who would want to carry a firearm legally for self defense are the ones that are the real threat.
Rapists... nah, you need to wait for a rapist to be in the middle of raping you before you can assume that you're going to be raped.
but people who would legally carry a firearm for self defense... it is ok to assume that they mean no good.
By the way, the dead thread... didn't turn out as well as some might have liked. LOL.