Big Chicken...

[dburkhead]

I think we are talking the same thing…just differently

The original rebels here in America flouted all laws and ‘common sense’ and risked their lives and family lives to make a change. It was not done on a mere whim…I am preaching to the choir on the opening of the Revolution here.

The current Republic that is America was founded on the opinion of the MAJORITY. And it has been that way all along…the MAJORITY voice is the voice that is listened to, that makes the laws, that gets it’s way.

No, actually. A large part of the Constitution is specifically to set limits on what the "majority" can do. That's why the limited powers of government, the enumeration of certain rights, etc.

Changing those things takes a rather large supermajority--either that or a very small minority (as few as five men and women).

Here is where I may be splitting hairs, you be the judge.

I never said, or stated that I agreed with, the Indiana law requiring licensing to carry a handgun was legal, by either Constitution. I just stated it was the law. That law came into being because the MAJORITY wanted it, right wrong or indifferent.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The laws in question were never put to a public referendum. A majority of a rather small group (Indiana House and Senate, plus the governor at the time) set the law. And one cannot even use that those individuals are selected by popular vote to say that any given vote of their represents what "the majority" wants. Most people are not "single issue" voters so they will get votes from people who agree with some of their positions and disagree with others.

As long as the MAJORITY continues to believe that it is in it’s best interest to have a big Federal government, and to live in a “nanny state”, and to give up Constitutionally guaranteed rights in exchange for monetary gain, getting things back to the way they were 200+ years ago aint gonna happen.

You mean like the very large majority who wrote in saying "no" to the October "bailout" package? The joke was "calls and letters are running 50/50: 50% saying 'no' and the other 50% saying 'hell no'."

A long time ago, a Man was put to a test, and His reply was, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” I think that applies here, too.

Context is everything. That answer was well crafted to deal with the particular "trick question" that was asked. You see, to just say "yes, pay the tax" would be to lose the popular support that that individual was gathering. However, to say "don't pay the tax" was to bring down the wrath of Rome with unpleasant consequences. The answer given managed to evade both traps.

If you look a bit farther you will see times to obey the law, and times not to obey the law. Consider, for instance, the case of Daniel. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll find others. Or if you'd rather stay out of the Old Testament, consider the careers of Jesus' followers. They weren't martyred for obeying the law.

When enough PEOPLE have had ENOUGH, there will be a change. History proves it time and time again.

Most of what I see from history is one tyrant after another. And "popular" revolutions are more likely to follow the path of the French Revolution and the Terror (leading to yet another Empire with a tyrant at the helm) than otherwise.

On the flip side, as Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. "

Until then, I will keep my lifetime LTCH, and my guns. And pray that Jesus returns, rapidly.

I guess you'll keep them until they are considered "Caesars" and you have to render them up.

 

[Lost Californian]

...snip...



I guess you'll keep them until they are considered "Caesars" and you have to render them up.

Well, that is the big question, isn't it? My dad and I talk about this frequently...and neither of us can come up with the right answer.

As of right now, no, those won't be rendered.

Thanks for the great conversation, too.

 

[BloodEclipse]

IA long time ago, a Man was put to a test, and His reply was, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” I think that applies here, too.

God didn't write the laws of the Untied States of America. Our Founding documents are being distorted, so I don't see this applying to the discussion.
Yes we are suppose to follow the laws (legal or not) and as most have stated, you follow them but work to right them.
We want to hold the government to the "LIMITED" powers given it under the Constitution.

 

[oldfb]

But! If Jesus had a gun would he...
OC or CCW?
Sorry sounded funny while I typed it.
For a crime and punishment standard or matter a ccw or permit leans towards the working gun control. Meaning it gives the justice system another charge to hopefully extend jail time or penalties. The RTKBA is a great right but legally it doesn't cover much because of criminals. The Constitution doesn't protect us. We protect it! Or should, not the other way around. Do we spend hours bitching about drivers lic. or plates & titles? Someone somewhere had to draw a line in the sand. The permit is that line! We have to try for order and decency someway, right? But often we all don't agree on the way to that end. I say, Band together my brothers and protect thru the votes, new reps and in our each individual homes and streets. Just maybe with one loud & calm voice or even a whisper in our childrens ear at bedtime, we can help each other weather the approaching storms.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
For a crime and punishment standard or matter a ccw or permit leans towards the working gun control. Meaning it gives the justice system another charge to hopefully extend jail time or penalties. The RTKBA is a great right but legally it doesn't cover much because of criminals. The Constitution doesn't protect us. We protect it! Or should, not the other way around. Do we spend hours bitching about drivers lic. or plates & titles? Someone somewhere had to draw a line in the sand. The permit is that line! We have to try for order and decency someway, right?
...

Here in Indiana, yes, under our current law, mandating a permit/license could be said to make sense. In other states, however, there are much more onerous restrictions standing between the lawful gun owner and his/her safety. In many (perhaps even most) places, a mandatory "training class" is the common delay. These classes are sometimes expensive, blocking the poor who could afford a cheap handgun and ammo, but cannot afford expensive license fees and classes, nor time to spare to take those classes. The classes are not always convenient to take, depending on who is allowed to teach them. Additionally, some of the classes require a "live fire" proof of marksmanship ability. If the standard is that one must be able to put five rounds on the black part of the target at 10 yards, that's probably fair. How hard is it for a bureaucracy to change with the stroke of a pen either the size of the black part, the distance it must be from the shooter, the number of rounds that must hit, or all of these factors, plus others?

These forces are at work. The Brady bunch issued "grades" last year to all 50 states. In each state, points could be assessed for certain laws on the books. Here's their "scorecard":

Curb firearm trafficking (35 points)

Gun Dealer Regulations (12 pts)
State license required 2
Record keeping and retention 2
Report records to the state, and state retains records 2
Mandatory theft reporting of all firearms 2
At least 1 store security precaution required 2
Inspections by police are mandated (2)/permitted (1) 2/1

Limit bulk purchases (10 pts)
One handgun per month, no exceptions 10
One handgun per month, 1 exception 6
One handgun per month, 2 or more exceptions 3

Crime gun identification (10 pts)
Ballistic fingerprinting 5
Require microstamping on semi-auto handguns 5

Report Lost/Stolen Guns (3 pts)
Mandatory reporting by firearm owners 3

Strengthen Brady background checks (25 points)

Universal background check (17 pts)
All firearms 17
Handguns only 10

Permit to purchase (8 pts)
Fingerprinting required 2
Safety training/testing required 2
Extend three-day limit for background checks 2
Permit process involves law enforcement 2

Closed gun show loophole (7pts) (states w/ universal BGC not eligible)
Background check on all firearms for each purchase 7
Background check on handguns only for each purchase 5
Background check on long guns only for each purchase 4
Permit for all firearms, no background check per purchase 3
Permit for handguns, no background check per purchase 2
Permit for long guns, no background check per purchase 1

Child safety (20 points)

Childproof Handguns (7 pts)
Only authorized users are able to operate new handguns 7

Child Safety locks (6 pts)
Integrated locks sold on all handguns 3
External locks sold with all handguns 2
Standards on all external locks 1

Child access prevention (5 pts)
Ages 16/17 and under 5
Ages 14/15 and under 3
Ages 13 and under 2

Juvenile Handgun Purchases (2 pts)
Must be 21 2

Ban military-style assault weapons (10 points)

Assault weapons ban (5 pts)
1 feature test 5
2 feature test 3
2 feature test on assault pistols only 1

Large capacity magazine ban (5 pts)
10 rounds or less 5
15 rounds or less 3

Guns in public places & local control (10 points)

No Guns in Workplace (2 pts)
Employers not forced to allow firearms on premises 2
No Guns on College Campuses (2 pts)
Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus 2
Not A CCW Shall Issue State (2 pts)
Law enforcement discretion when issuing CCW permits 2
No Shoot First Law (2 pts)
Deadly force not allowed to be a first resort in public 2
No State Preemption (2 pts)
Local control of firearm regulations(2)/gun shows only(1) 2/1

California scored highest with a whopping 79 points. They "permit" inspections by police of gun dealers (1), rather than mandate them; they didn't require "ballistic fingerprinting" (5) and didn't require that stolen guns be reported by their owners (3); they reportedly "do not involve law-enforcement in the permit to purchase"(2) (not true; CA is "may issue" not "shall issue"). They also lost points for not requiring "Only authorized users are able to operate new handguns"(7) and "Integrated locks sold on all handguns"(3).

All of these things are seen by our enemies, the enemies of freedom, as good things. Indiana got eight points, only six of which are accurate. Oklahoma only got hit for two points, because their colleges are still permitted to infringe on CCW rights.


Try for order and decency? OK, sure. We've tried it their way (more laws, more rules, more restrictions); I say now we try it the other way: Fewer unConstitutional laws, rules, and restrictions and more freedom for those who respect the rights of others. Punish the guilty, not the innocent.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[indytechnerd]

I'm not going to go back and quote the many fine points put up by BoR and others. I do have a few questions, though, for the generic 'you'.

1. Do you agree that, good, bad, or indifferent, we need to follow the laws while trying to change them?
1a. If the answer is no, do think that your actions are a help or a hindrance to furthering gunowners rights and the 2A?

2. What do you think should be the law, in regards to the State laws surrounding gun ownership and the carry thereof, and why? This should be like a scale of 1-10, 1 being no restrictions at all, 10 being IL.

3. For those laws that are vague, or in some cases legitimately wrong, would you be willing to be the lightning rod to get case law on the books supporting our (the gun owners) stance? An example of this is the 'school function' clause.

4. In your opinion, under what circumstances, if any, would the 2A (and RKBA) not apply to a specific person?

Maybe I'm fanning the flames a bit. It's been said that the antis will take our rights one little bite at a time. Our plans to fix our rights need to be better than their plans to erode them. The antis say "we need x, y, and z." The gun owner community says "No way, jose, that's not right." Someone pipes up with "well, what is, then?" That's where the stammering starts. The antis are very good at needling away our rights, we need to brush up on needling them back, rather than grabbing for the whole pinata.

To use a different analogy....
Gun owners rights, the 2A and RKBA:

Us:

 

[jsgolfman]

1. Yes
2. 1
3. Generally, no
4. It applies to everyone that is not currently under a criminal sentence

 

[dross]

This might seem a little out of context in this spot, but I want to address the issue of "God-given" rights argued earlier in this thread. The phrase "God-given" is a paraphrase of the words in preamble of the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."

It doesn't matter if you believe in God, and it has nothing to do with the Bible. The important concept is that you are born with certain rights, and no one may legitimately take them away from you. Yes, you can behave in certain ways which will cause your rights to be abridged. For instance, you can become mentally ill to the point your competence is harmed. You can commit a serious crime. Losing some of your rights for these reasons only happens after you prove you can't be trusted with your free will. The key is that you must first demonstrate your inability to be trusted.

Taking away rights without the justification of your own behavior is tyranny. It doesn't have anything to do with someone else feeling uncomfortable because you're exercising your rights.

The creation of a law does not in and of itself create a moral obligation to obey that law. I have no obligation to obey oppressive laws. Yes, the State has the power to make me suffer if I don't obey, but that's not the same as my having an obligation.

I can be punished for hitting a guy in the nose, or for threatening to do it, but I shouldn't have to go around with my hands tied because someone thought I MIGHT do it. Yes, if I decide to hit someone it will be too late to stop me, and all the law may do is to punish me for it. The other guy's nose is still bloody. This is what we call the price of a free society.

Why don't we stop all the people who might do such a thing before they do it? Wouldn't the world be safer? No. Not even if it would work, which it wouldn't. We'd have to turn the world into a prison for most of rest of us. The world isn't safe for me if my rights are overly restricted on the chance I might abuse those rights. No, the price of a free society is the recognition that in order to be free, safety will suffer a little. But it's worth it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not going to go back and quote the many fine points put up by BoR and others. I do have a few questions, though, for the generic 'you'.

1. Do you agree that, good, bad, or indifferent, we need to follow the laws while trying to change them?
1a. If the answer is no, do think that your actions are a help or a hindrance to furthering gunowners rights and the 2A?

2. What do you think should be the law, in regards to the State laws surrounding gun ownership and the carry thereof, and why? This should be like a scale of 1-10, 1 being no restrictions at all, 10 being IL.

3. For those laws that are vague, or in some cases legitimately wrong, would you be willing to be the lightning rod to get case law on the books supporting our (the gun owners) stance? An example of this is the 'school function' clause.

4. In your opinion, under what circumstances, if any, would the 2A (and RKBA) not apply to a specific person?

Maybe I'm fanning the flames a bit. It's been said that the antis will take our rights one little bite at a time. Our plans to fix our rights need to be better than their plans to erode them. The antis say "we need x, y, and z." The gun owner community says "No way, jose, that's not right." Someone pipes up with "well, what is, then?" That's where the stammering starts. The antis are very good at needling away our rights, we need to brush up on needling them back, rather than grabbing for the whole pinata.

To use a different analogy....
Gun owners rights, the 2A and RKBA:

Us:

First, no; Gollum was an insane murderer and the One Ring was pure, unadulterated evil. For these reasons, I discount your example, though I understand that your point was (probably) that the rights given us by virtue of being born are a seemingly unattainable goal which we pursue incessantly.
Second, on to your questions:
Should we obey laws while trying to change them? I would say it depends upon the law, the punishment for violating it, and the individual convictions of the person making the decision. If a law was passed tomorrow a la Dianne Feinstein, "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in", I cannot say that the response of "Molon Labe" would be out of line. Conversely, going to get a LTCH is something I will begrudgingly do. As to whether this is a help or a hindrance, this is the reason I prefer the term "peaceable" to "law-abiding". We who would not start violence but who are willing to use it to stop a greater violence and/or threat would quickly have to choose whether to remain "law-abiding" if that was the descriptive term by which we identified ourselves. By being "peaceable", no such redefinition is necessary.

What should the law be re: gun ownership and carry? Given your scale, perhaps "2". I do believe that those who are incarcerated should not be allowed access to weapons. This would technically be a restriction. At the governmental level, that should, IMHO, be the end of it. This is not to say that a parent may not restrict his/her child from firearms ownership and/or carry. Those who initiate violence should be held accountable for their misdeeds, just as are the rest of us for our own actions.

Would I be willing to be the test case? If I chose to carry in such a place and my actions put me in the position of being the test case, I do not think I would shy from it. I will not seek out that role by choice, however.

For #4, see #2.

How to answer the antis: We've tried their way. We have over 20,000 infringements upon the RKBA; so many that the books printed in previous years have now been placed on a CD to reduce the costs to BATF to send them out. I would say we should try the other way, as many volumes of evidence indicate we should. Loosen laws and remove hindrances that restrict only those who obey the law. Catch and punish those who initiate violence against others, and by that I mean the threatening carjacker, not the car owner who manages to fire first.

The argument dross made wherein a punch in the nose may be punished is a good one. The antis will claim that a punch in the nose is unlikely to kill someone, nor can one person punch 32 others in the nose and kill them as easily as happened at Va. Tech. This is true, but there are many things that can be used to do the same or worse that are less regulated. The making of napalm, thermite, or any number of other substances that could be used to do violence is simple and impossible to regulate without making cleaning products, gasoline, metal, and rust illegal to possess, and even if such laws were passed, how are we really going to eliminate all the metal and all the rust in the country?

Punish the violent criminals. Leave the rest of us alone. Obey the Constitution. Why is that so hard, unless you're insane with power-lust?

Hmm. Come to think of it, the Gollum analogy wasn't so bad... Just applied to the wrong group. The Ring would be "Total Gun Control". You can figure out the rest.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[oldfb]

point taken Bill!
Thanks everyone for offering a whole ream of info to mull over and digest.
I do believe we are responsible for obeying the law until the laws are changed. Responsibility dictates accepting the consequences for not obeying. I have a friend who has a friend that still insists on ccw every trip to chicago. Yes this friend is breaking the law. He knows there will be consequences if he is caught. Yet still he chooses to break it. He never gave mucch thought to how it will affect the cause.
He also doesn't want to be the one to "set the example" in court.
He does fear for his safety and selfishly chooses to risk his freedom to protect himself and his family.
He also makes sure to obey every other stinking law,rule and common sense suggestion while doing so, to avoid going to jail.

Is he a criminal,rebel,patriot or just a fool? That is still undecided.

 

[southin]

We trust people all the time with things that can be deadly and that require no license. Knives, flammable liquids, poisons, etc. all can be found in everyday society, and the simple fact is that most people are good people. Some go the extra, unnecessary step of "proving" their innocence of any crime by being, as ntrngr pointed out, treated like a criminal-fingerprinted, forms filled out-hell, I just found out tonight that in Evansville, IN, the police department is forcing citizens to have their photos taken prior to accepting their LTCH application, and then is holding said applications for 21 days before sending them to ISP. Further, they claim that they have been told by ISP that this is acceptable and within the law--they have not and it is not--but most people who go in to apply don't know this and don't have the preparation to fight it.

I find it saddening and at the same time, angering, that those who we trust to enforce the laws would choose to disregard those laws, and still more so that they do so with a city government that is complicit.

I can deal with a perp with an agenda who wants to shoot me in the back to steal my wallet. I have at least a chance of putting a couple of rounds in his chest, even though I may die in the process. I at least have a chance to keep that MFer from doing the same to anyone else. With my government, it doesn't matter if I take out whoever comes to try to take what is mine, the government lives on, and will just hire someone else, probably some of your brothers in blue (in other words, guys committed and sworn to uphold the law, forcing them to choose between NOT denying/violating someone's fundamental and Constitutional rights vs. feeding their family), to go on to the next guy to do the same thing.

Trust can certainly be misplaced, but placing it in individuals is probably far wiser than placing it in entities and agencies of government.

Blessings,
Bill

This is the case yes, (now supposedly an informed "option") but the 21 day hold is not the case.
I got photoed in Jan. because I knew no better (not that it bothers me), but they did not hold it. I was approved by the chief BEFORE the prints and photo were done.
Prints and photo were the last thing the city had to do before giving me the paperwork to send up to Indy.

 

[ntrngr]

Its not a big breach of the 2nd Amendment. After all, its only $120 and its for life so its not ongoing "rent" for your rights. So, I did it. I paid the king his ransom for the rights granted to me by God. After all, doesn't God work for the state of Indiana?

Like all potential criminals, I was fingerprinted and paid the fine. I will now slip quietly into the background, ceasing all musings about taxes and amendments. ...and the piece of paper that "allows" me to carry a handgun is nothing more than a get out of jail free card for excersizing my 2nd Amendment rights.

The law is the law, and, then the government just does what it wants anyway. Veiled Tyranny. There is no other term for it.

Where do we assemble?

AND NOW I HAVE IT!!! Yippee!

March 6th to April 25th

So now I carry. Of course, I can't carry at work or even park in the parking lot since my office is in the basement of a high school. I unstrap the tool and put it under the seat and park on the public street which is actually CLOSER to my office than the parking lot. Go figure... I had already told the on duty LEO what I planned to do and he gave me the thumbs up and said there should be no problem with that.

In the couple weeks that I've been re-authorized (first in 1787 and now in 2009) I often CC with my little cheapie 25 auto. Its a cheapie but I've worked it over and its as reliable as the sunrise.

Other times I'm OCing with a S&W Mod. 59, a double action autoloader.

I may be way too safety conscious (is that possible?) but I just can't stand carrying the 25 auto live with the safety on (it even has grip safety). However, my model 59 is a crossbolt safety, double action hammer type gun. I have no problem carrying the 59 chambered, safety off, hammer on half cock. Its double action so I can aim, cock and fire all in one. You're all familiar with that, I'm sure.

Opinions please...

 

[wfc8706]

I totally understand what you're saying, ntrngr. Why should we have to go to the police station to regain the rights we supposedly already had under the second amendment? I'm not at all bothered by your use of the word tyranny. That's what it is! And this is only one example of the tyranny committed by our state and federal governments. It kind of makes you wonder what was going through our founding fathers' minds before they deciced that enough was enough. What will it take for us?

 

[Boilers]

OK. I was potty trained with a snub nosed 38. I've been around guns since I was born. In fact, I heard gun blasts BEFORE I was born. Guns aren't my problem. Here is my problem:

I've read the 2nd Amendment maybe 500 times. Can some one tell me why I feel like I am betraying it if I go to the sheriff's dept. and ask permission to excercise it? I wan to CC but I just can't get myself to be treated like a criminal (fingerprinted) and ask permission to do what God has already given me the right to do.

Can I just print out the 2nd Amendment and laminate it? Sheesh!

Advice please.

I hope one day medical science will save this country. Resurrect the founders through cloning and have them stay in power to interpret their own laws as they meant them to be followed.