Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[Vasili]

Though i must say that backround checks should be done but purely for a vilent crimial history. I also believe the only violent felons are the only ones that should be banned for life from owning firearms. Some felonys should not carry those restrictions. If you can be rehabed to society then you should also have the chance to prove your capable of being responsable enough to own a firearm. Though I would admit this would be few and far in between and a case by case thing but i figure its a far better way to spend tax money then on other things.

funny cause i don't remember the USCONSTITUTION saying anyone has to have a background check to bear arms.

at all.

in fact, pretty sure it says BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

maybe i'm just not reading it good enough. let me read it again.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified. Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French. Few people are properly prepared to defend the nation on their own and yet the need does not exist. That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves. Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

 

[rambone]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified.

Wow. -1. The right to bear arms is no longer justified? Seems like you are on the wrong website then.

Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French.

Indians, British, & French? What about all the rapists, murderers, and ATF agents lurking out there?

That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves.

Police are there to take pictures of your dead body and document the crime scene. Police will not save you from bad guys when you will only have a few seconds to react to a violent encounter.

Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

No more wars huh? They should call you Nostradamus.

 

[Vasili]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified. Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French. Few people are properly prepared to defend the nation on their own and yet the need does not exist. That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves. Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

I'll defend my land from anyone who tries to take it from me. I don't care what banner is on their standard. The right to bear arms is still justified. It will forever be justified until there are no longer people who possibly think that it could ever not be justified. And then maybe it just might not be.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified. Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French. Few people are properly prepared to defend the nation on their own and yet the need does not exist. That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves. Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

So, you do not feel the right to bear arms is justified or necessary anymore? Why are you on a firearms site, then, and why do you own guns? If it's not necessary or justified, isn't it hypocritical to own such a dangerous tool?

For the record, the right wasn't inserted to allow us to defend ourselves and the government from Indians. It is there to allow us to defend ourselves against the government, and the police and soldiers who work for it and are the greatest danger to our freedoms.

If you are not willing or prepared to arm yourself to defend against government tyranny, you do not understand what the government understood about the dangers posed by the government they set up. You are at best a freeloader, at worst a threat.

 

[XMil]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified.

With the state of the world today, it is more "justified" than ever.

Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French. Few people are properly prepared to defend the nation on their own and yet the need does not exist.

The need does exist and if you think the young boys and old men that nearly froze to death and or died of starvation in our first go-around with an oppressive government were any more properly prepared the we are now, I believe you are sorely mistaken.

That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves.

Joe covered the part about who it is the guns are really for, I really want to reemphasize though, that the idea behind your comment is at least as old as civilization.

Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

You never know when it could happen. The world is at least as dangerous today as it was in 1700's.

I guess you must be a college kid at IU, all warm and safe with mommy and daddy paying the bills. A place where the Government is benevolent, the bad guy always gets caught and the puppies never grow up. I hope you enjoy yourself over there and successfully finish your liberal arts degree. I also hope that the transition to the real world goes smoothly, there are pointy edges out here.


You must be from out of state too, because even the girls in Indiana are braver than you sound.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Absolutely no background checks needed. Are we forgetting that in our very own State we are required to get a permit to carry and the bad guys are not. So what good would a background check? None, besides intruding into my space and time.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The only acceptable gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.

 

[TopDog]

I see basically 3 type of views here:
1. It is completely unconstitutional
2. Middle of the road, ie: reasonable laws
3. Those that somehow even if its not their intention come across as supporting regulation for our own good.

Sad to say at one time I was a 2. Now I am a 1.

I became a 1 because as I got more involved in the gun culture I found what is reasonable to one person is not necessarily reasonable to another.
I couldn't and still don't see the reasoning of some - if a person gets out of jail they have paid their debt to society and should be able to carry, lawfully. Well if we had a decent judicial system that worked and a penal system that actually rehabilitated criminals then yes. Sadly we don't have any such systems. Aside from my personal feelings of criminals carrying the 2A makes it clear "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you support the 2A then you support the 2A. Any monkeying around with the 2A means you do not support it.

Common sense does not go into the making of our laws. Look at the now dead AWB. Then there is what should be driving every person to a 1. The gun grabbers, the anti 2A people. They want all guns gone, they want to go the way of England. There is no compromise for these groups. That alone ought to be enough to convince the 2 and 3 to become 1's.

Unfortunately I can't see a "middle of the road" with this issue. What is and isn't reasonable in our society has become extremely blurred.

By the way if you see me at the MCF&G range ask me for a 2A tag.

 

[Josh Ward]

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this without getting my sh*t jumped, but i'll take a whirl at it. The 2nd amendment was enacted 219 years ago. Things were a bit different back then. I'm no history major, but I assume more people grew up with guns in the home as well as other devices used for hunting. Most kids would grow up learning how to use these items properly for hunting and if needed, self defense. I'm sure many of the people who post here grew up with a parent who taught them about guns and the proper use and care of them. I grew up in a republican home, but without guns. We were not hunters. When i did make the decision to get my LTCH and purchase a weapon, I sought out help and training from someone I knew. Not everyone does this. Most everyone here has been swept by an inexperienced shooter at the range myself included. This is why I have no problems with a LTCH or if training is required. I don't see it as a government trying to control me as I do a hurdle to help slow down the wrong people from having guns.

Yep, you're right, you are going to get "your **** jumped"

That kind of rediclious logic is EXACTLY what the antis want in the gunowners of today. They know damn good and well their is no way that guns could be banned completly and outright all at one time. BUT, but if they can plant little seeds of infringement and get us to buy into it little by little they will win the "war" in the end.

 

[Josh Ward]

Wow. Us Americans and our love for guns.....
While I do know that many people feel any infringement on their right to bear arms is unacceptable, I do believe it is necessary. There are arguments that only law-abiding citizens follow the restrictions required to carry guns, buy/sell, or any other laws regarding guns. Yet, some regulation is necessary in order to satisfy Americans who don't think guns should be allowed at all.

One aspect many people dont think about is that while many people believe that background checks are necessary, they don't think about the time and effort it imposes on business owners. While it is becoming cheaper to do background checks, business owners should be allowed to charge something for their troubles. Might seem a little jumbled, but I do support some regulation of firearms in order to ensure a certain degree of safety but mostly to appease those are pro gun-regulation.

See my above post, the same applies to you, sir

 

[Josh Ward]

When you negotiate on Liberty, you make steady progression towards tyranny.

When you dance with the Devil, the Devil doesn't change. You do.

Negotiate for a "halfway socialist" law just means you helped move your people away from freedom and towards Government control. "Getting along" has nothing to do with it.

Bravo sir, BRAVO

No more rep for me today...gave it all out on this thred...good and bad

 

[Josh Ward]

Yet at the time when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was justified. Whether it be to defend your land from Indians, the British, or the French. Few people are properly prepared to defend the nation on their own and yet the need does not exist. That is why we have police officers, soldiers, and others who are put in a position to defend us so that we do not have to defend ourselves. Not like we as individuals are going to arm ourselves and go fight a war.

Tell you what pal, if I were you I pack up my belongings and move to California or DC or ILL. You will be much happier in those socilist/communist states

 

[rambone]

I couldn't and still don't see the reasoning of some - if a person gets out of jail they have paid their debt to society and should be able to carry, lawfully. Well if we had a decent judicial system that worked and a penal system that actually rehabilitated criminals then yes. Sadly we don't have any such systems.

Aside from my personal feelings of criminals carrying the 2A makes it clear "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you support the 2A then you support the 2A. Any monkeying around with the 2A means you do not support it.

Let's say we start from scratch and have no gun control laws - except for denying the Privilege to Keep & Bear Arms from people with a record. Now we have an excuse to do background checks before purchasing. Then we have an excuse to create "Licensed" gun dealers. Then we have an excuse to institute a LTCH to be sure only "proper" people receive their PKBA. Then we have an excuse to impose a tax on the LTCH. Then we have a reason for cops to constantly question us and make us prove we are "proper" persons. Then we have an excuse for cops to searching us for contraband. Then we have an excuse to regulate gun shows so only "proper" persons are doing transactions. Then we have an excuse to limit the ability to trade weapons amongst each other, for fear that someone out there might have once made a mistake. Then we have an excuse to create agencies to chase us around and make sure we jump through all the hoops. Hello, ATF.

One simple bit of gun control gives way to many others. Then we are right back where we are today in this web of regulations, all-powerful agencies, and a gun-fearing sheeple.

I stand by the idea that rights cannot be revoked, and we must not treat the outside world like the inside of a prison.

 

[subtlesixer03]

Subtlesixer03 and TJSieling, why background checks? Why should I have to prove my IMHO.innocence of criminal activity, rather than it being incumbent upon government or its agents to prove my unsuitability to exercise my rights? Further, as I've asked other places on here, why should past criminal history remove one's lawful ability to protect your family and/or yourself? If there must be a restriction on former felons, I say let it be that if they're caught committing a crime with their firearm, their sentences should be enhanced, but once they've served their sentences (or as some call it, "paid their debt to society",) their rights should be restored completely,


I should have worded what i ment better. I believe in backround checks purely for the purpose of varfing identity and citizenship. In my opinion the moment you are convicted of a felany crime you are no longer a citizen till you pay your debt. crimes should very well carry harder punishments or at least most should. Crimes are choices and all choices carry responsiblity.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You asked the wrong question. The answer to the question you asked is no, it's not clearly not unconstitutional. That's not what I think, it's what I know. I know that because the courts have ruled on it, and they decide what is constitutional or not. That's our system, corrupt as you may believe it to be.

You can not like my answer. That's fine. You can be mad at me. You can say I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. You can say I support government tyranny or some silliness like that. I don't. You can call me an idiot ot tool of the state. I'm not. Or you can keep reading. You should.

The question you should have asked, wanted to ask, but didn't ask, is given that the LTCH is constitutional regulation of the right to bear arms, should the constitution be changed to provide an unfettered, unconditional right to bear arms without any interference by the state. To that question I give an absolute and unequivical Yes the constitution should be changed to allow the people an unconditional right to keep and bear arms.

The other thing you didn't ask is what's next?

 

[rambone]

I believe in backround checks purely for the purpose of varfing identity and citizenship.

Why deny selling guns to non-citizens? Its just more gun control.

1) More guns in private hands = Less crime. (And less living criminals)
2) More guns sold strengthens the gun market.
3) More guns sold strengthens the overall economy. (We buy everything from foreigners, why can't we sell some things that way too?)
4) The constitution marks things the government may not do, ever. With or without their government paperwork. It is illegal for the Government to tell us who is allowed to be armed.
5) Instill the love of firearms in a person while they are here, and they can hopefully create better gun laws in their own countries too. Its hard to love gun culture when you were born in a place that never let's you touch one in real life.


Nothing good comes from this type of gun control, either. Free your mind! No more gun control!!

 

[mrjarrell]

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

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.

Sorry, SFUSMC, but the Constitutions don't need to be changed. The court rulings and legislation need to be over turned. They are unConstitutional on their faces. The Indiana and US Constitutions are unequivocal in their meaning.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You asked the wrong question. The answer to the question you asked is no, it's not clearly not unconstitutional. That's not what I think, it's what I know. I know that because the courts have ruled on it, and they decide what is constitutional or not. That's our system, corrupt as you may believe it to be.

You can not like my answer. That's fine. You can be mad at me. You can say I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. You can say I support government tyranny or some silliness like that. I don't. You can call me an idiot ot tool of the state. I'm not. Or you can keep reading. You should.

The question you should have asked, wanted to ask, but didn't ask, is given that the LTCH is constitutional regulation of the right to bear arms, should the constitution be changed to provide an unfettered, unconditional right to bear arms without any interference by the state. To that question I give an absolute and unequivical Yes the constitution should be changed to allow the people an unconditional right to keep and bear arms.

The other thing you didn't ask is what's next?

I can't agree with this. I see what you're saying; that it's not our decision what is and is not Constitutional, that that power is reserved to jurists, nine of them in particular.
In another thread, you recently told me that case law is everything. I've not read if you answered my reply to you on that as yet, but it seems to me that the system is being administered much as the Catholic church once was in that then, the average person had to ask the priest to intercede with God on his behalf, rather than approaching his God for himself. The courts seem to be saying similar when the average person cannot read the plain English text of a law and know what it means.

Sorry, SFUSMC, but the Constitutions don't need to be changed. The court rulings and legislation need to be over turned. They are unConstitutional on their faces. The Indiana and US Constitutions are unequivocal in their meaning.

Only in law can "shall not be infringed" be taken to mean "...except when it's approved by the people this is designed to keep in check."

It is not the Constitution that needs changed but rather who is allowed the power to interpret it, for even children as young as five understand the meaning of "shall not".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can't agree with this. I see what you're saying; that it's not our decision what is and is not Constitutional, that that power is reserved to jurists, nine of them in particular.
In another thread, you recently told me that case law is everything. I've not read if you answered my reply to you on that as yet, but it seems to me that the system is being administered much as the Catholic church once was in that then, the average person had to ask the priest to intercede with God on his behalf, rather than approaching his God for himself. The courts seem to be saying similar when the average person cannot read the plain English text of a law and know what it means.




Only in law can "shall not be infringed" be taken to mean "...except when it's approved by the people this is designed to keep in check."

It is not the Constitution that needs changed but rather who is allowed the power to interpret it, for even children as young as five understand the meaning of "shall not".

Blessings,
Bill

I'm a realist. It's a reality vs. fantasy thing. The reality is that the courts have decided that no right is absolute. I don't necessarily agree, but it is reality. It's been like that for 500 years. Expecting it to change is like expecting to be able to fly to the moon without a spaceship and telling everyone what you plan to do. You look cool in front of your friends, but you still can't fly to the moon.

I draw the distinction so that people can start to think about what needs to change and how to change it. Then start putting together a plan to actually accomplish it. Otherwise we're just a bunch of grumps complaining about something we don't have the wherewithall to affect.