Here is some gun-control I want passed

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dmack_901

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
361
Location
FL
This is not a law that is currently in congress, but none the less a constitutional ammendment should be passed stating something to the effect of:

Section 1. All restrictions and regulations on the ownership, transfer of ownership, possession, use, transportation, and manufacture of arms, shall apply to all. No person or party is exempt, except for military personal when in actual service in time of War or public danger.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Click to expand...
Of course multiple lawyers would have to revise this to make sure that is would act as intended, and even then it would never pass. What do you think? After all, if the public cannot be trusted with them, then why should anyone else?
 
It may pass, but it doesn't mean that the govenment will follow it.

-Bill
 
For a second I though that was a real good point, and some parts probably would try that, but with the way the media is getting today, I don't think anyone could sucessfully "pull an Andrew Jackson" like that.

ps - By "pull an Andrew Jackson", I'm referring to the forced movement of indians to reservations against the supreme court decision; we just learned about that in school for the 5th time.
 
I am unclear what the intent of such a law would be. I want to deal guns, so I got my ffl. I have been to numerous gun shows where dealers sell withno Nics check or paper work because they are't "dealers". Sorry, but if you continually sell (or attempt to sell) several guns in a public venue, you should have to meet some standards.

On the otherr hand I feel that every adult, free citizen should be allowed concealed carry without permit for the purpose of self protection.
 
If the .gov followed it's own laws the vast majority of legilslators and beurocrats would be impeached and the government would be nearly non-existant. Funny how none of them seem to remember the whole oath about upholding the constitution. Of course they won't impeach each other because they know they're just as bad as the other guy.
 
Yea, that post of mine was a little odd now that I reread it. I had just read that thread about NJ's senators wanting to pass yet another law which only applied to civillians, and that got me a little frustrated. It just seems like people forgot what second ammendment is all about.
 
Section 1. All restrictions and regulations on the ownership, transfer of ownership, possession, use, transportation, and manufacture of arms, shall apply to all. No person or party is exempt, except for military personal when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Click to expand...

One big problem. Right now we are in a "war on drugs" as well as a "war on terror". The police are defacto soldiers in that war. It would take but a stroke of the pen to reclassify police officers as "soldiers" under either state, local, or federal controll.

That puts us in an even worse position since it would essentially nullify posse comitatus and we really would be in a police state. And our law enforcement personelle would be come the military and I'll give you one guess who gets to be "the enemy".
 
No flame intended, fella, but I have a hot flash for ya---

The laws already apply to everybody.

If you meant ownership of full auto, suppressors, AOW's, etc., when it comes down to the law, the law enforcement officer has no more--and no less--rights than any other citizen.

If it's OK for you to own full auto in your state, then it's ok for the private citizen/cop. If it's not (like here in WA) then the cop can't have one either.
 
Well if that passed then every violent felon could walk in to a gun shop and legally purchase all the guns they needed to keep going. Not such a good idea.
 
If you meant ownership of full auto, suppressors, AOW's, etc., when it comes down to the law, the law enforcement officer has no more--and no less--rights than any other citizen.
Click to expand...

That's why police can buy a brand new MP5 for about $1000, and we can't, right?

Is this more to keep loopholes like LEO only from happening, that if private citizens don't need it, then police would never need it?
 
That's why police can buy a brand new MP5 for about $1000, and we can't, right?
Click to expand...

Law enforcement agencies can--but there is still a horrendous amount of paperwork to be done for it.

Individual cops can, too--under exactly the same restrictions that you fall under. If we feel the need to own a gun where a transferable sample costs over 10K--and we live in a state where Class III is OK--then we, too can have an ubertactical lead hose.

No, we cannot use them for duty, either. And, lest you think that all of us local neighborhood JBT's hang together, the .gov makes no distinctions. I believe that in Bucyrus, OH, an LEO's home was raided by ATF, his pregnant wife was slammed against a wall so hard she miscarried, and his gun collection was seized. He got his firearms back, AFAIK. But that didn't save the life of his unborn child.

Also, consider this--Do we have a need for readily available firepower that exceeds that of your non-LEO citizen? Remember that when the gunplay starts and everyone else is running away, you will find someone in a blue or brown uniform that is running toward the sound of the guns.

There are some notable exceptions to that, of course--but I believe that the recent self-sacrifice made by an armed citizen is covered in other threads.
 
How about:

Section 1. All restrictions and regulations shall apply to all. No person or party is exempt, except for military personal when in actual service in time of a Declaration of War passed by the Congress as stated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Also, consider this--Do we have a need for readily available firepower that exceeds that of your non-LEO citizen?
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVICALLY NOT!

I think you should have the SAME level of firepower available to me should I desire it.

I think you should get funding such that you are likely to be far better armed and armoured than the average crack-addict street thug with a stolen .22LR.

However, I belive you should NEVER be entitled to special legal exemption that provides you are more armed than I am allowed should I choose to spend the money. If I want to drop $20k on a Dillion M134 minigun, I should be able to do so.


I might oneday need to stop someone from taking your Muslim wife to a gas chamber, I assume you'd want me as armed as I can be so that day never comes.



Here's an idea:

Section 1. All weapons restrictions and regulations shall apply to all. No person or party is exempt.
Click to expand...


Oh, wait, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS, and it is worded much better:

Amendment II
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.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

These two ammendments mean exactly the same thing.
 
Just dropping the preamble to the 2nd would be enough.

Something like this would be a good revision of the 2nd:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms useful for; defense of self and home, for hunting, for sport, a check against an unjust government, and for any other lawfull purpose, shall not be infringed."
 
This point has already been essentially made, but:

1) The more you tamper with the Bill of Rights, the easier it becomes to justify doing more tampering.

2) Introducing more complexity just gives the judicial activists more to interpret to their own tastes.

{Nota Bene: If you don't know what a judicial activist is, and you're reading this forum, you need to find out. It's the way our government is changing from a representative republic to one ruled by despots in black robes. For starters, read the stuff on the judiciary in John Saul's Voltaire's Bastards.
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms useful for; defense of self and home, for hunting, for sport, a check against an unjust government, and for any other lawfull purpose, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

I don't think a federal government has any interest in the various reasons for owning a gun save one. Your "check against an unjust government" is already there. If you think it should be reworded as more explicit, that would be fine and perhaps end some rationalizing that the 2A doesn't mean what it says.

It doesn't matter anyway, because the fed courts will find a reason not to hear a case that challenges infringements no matter how you want to word it. If the previous Constitution is so easily ignored, how is a new one going to suddenly be a constraint?

No matter how you word it, there will still be several States with no RKBA. The 14th amendment is unfinished business.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a federal government has any interest in the various reasons for owning a gun save one. Your "check against an unjust government" is already there.
Click to expand...

I would go even a step further and say that there isnt a need for ANY justification for the right. How much easier would things be today if the 2nd ammendment had left off the first part of the statement that all the anti's think is a qualifyer? A simple statement that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed should be plenty adequate and leaves little room for argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top