The 2nd Ammendment is the only gun law that I acknowledge. All others are a in violation of the 2nd and have no legal standing.

Federal gun control laws are totally unconstitutional and are particularly pernicious. Whether, or not, the Second Ammendment should be applied to the States is a debatable point. We must insist on repeal of ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS.

Been working on that for years. The repeal of all gun laws will remove a cornerstone incentive and closing model of bureaucracies. The repeal of all gun laws will mean smaller government. The reason marxists fight so vociferously for gun control is because it kills self-defense and then furnished a fuax0logic of necessity for stricter restrictions on people.

All of the anti-hate laws, hate-crime legislations, over regulations in ruining privacy and other unneeded laws were born from gun control as the model. Stop interferng with personal self-defense and billions of dollars of programs will be impeached as redundent boondoggles.

I have had a Concealed Handgun License since they became available in Texas and have lived with and used handguns all my adult life (which included 37 years in the U.S. Army). What really gets to me is that, whenever I need to go somewhere that historically prohibits the carry of any kind of weapons, it defeats the purpose of my right to protect myself. The bad guys are not stupid. They know where I am prohibited to carry my gun, and depend upon me complying with the law, thus making me a target as they ignore such laws. If we have to have gun laws, execute them against the criminals.

Based on the legalistic logic employed by the Justice Department in the Arizona ID law, the 14th Amendment extends the provisions of federal citizens rights and supersedes the States. Thus, by their logic, which they only use when it is to their advantage, the 2nd Amendment "Congress shall make no law" pertains to the States as well. And by extension, counties and municipalities, or other subdivisions of the States.

Bear in mind, the Left wants everyone to forget or ignore the fact that Independence from Great Britain was formed by unanimous consent of the States, and Union came about only when the States consented to ratify it and the Bill of Rights.

Last point. The "confusing language" of the 2nd Amendment isn't so confusing when the context of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776) is applied. Initially drafted by George Mason, with assistance from James Madison and Patrick Henry, among others "XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power." Anyone confused as to what the meaning of the militia - the body of the people - in the colonial days need look no farther.

Better yet, we don't even need the Second Amendment: "If the responsibility to keep and bear arms is God-given, no one except Yahweh Himself has the right to withdraw it. If you are a Christian (and particularly if you are the head of your home), you were given the responsibility to keep and bear arms long before the United States Constitution was framed or ratified:

'Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye YH.' (Psalm 149:6-9)"

Excerpted from "Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.

Another way we are deprived of our rights is through the insidious use of govt implementation of review-proof departmental "policies." For example, although I have a concealed carry license, I am not allowed to go to the Social Security Office or the US Post Office (or even into their parking lots) while carrying. There is no federal or state LAW preventing this. There is only a "policy" implementated through USPS regulations, that bans it. You and I have absolutely no say in this "policy." I have no representative in the USPS to whom I can complain, nor would it do any good if I did (I have tried). My Congressman and Senators have no say or sway with the USPS. Nonetheless, I am still deprived of my right to self-defense if I choose to use the post office's "public" services. This limitation of rights without representation, is what we went to war with England over! If you look closely at the govt organization set up by the US Constitution, you will see that there are 3 branches of govt, each with specific duties and powers. The Legislative branch (where we citizens DO have representation) is the only branch that can make a law requiring that we citizens either do, or refrain from doing, something. The Judicial branch is in place primarily to ensure that if a law is passed that exceeds the limitations imposed by the Constitution, it can be overturned. The Executive branch, the one that causes all the "policy" trouble, is set up to implement/carry out the provisions of laws passed by the legislative branch. This means that the administration is supposed to decide exactly how to run the USPS efficiently (I know, don't get me started on THAT!). For example, they can decide to buy jeeps instead of sedans to deliver the mail, or tell the mail carriers to wear blue uniforms, they can set the price of stamps, etc., because that power is necessary to carry out their duty under the law. In a nutshell, their duty under the law, is to organize and operate a postal service that efficiently collects and delivers, the mail. However, while they can make rules for their employees, they have absolutely NO power to make rules governing their customers, i.e. "WE the People," although they continue to do so with impunity. When I raised an objection to their policy, I was told that they ban guns at post offices because the USPS has an obligation to safeguard their employees and customers. Actually, they have NO such obligation. Under the law establishing the USPS, they are only obligated to safeguard the MAIL, not their customers. It was assumed from the beginning that we customers (that is, "We the People"), could, and would, take care of our own safety. They knew we weren't wimps, after all, we had just kicked the world's largest army and navy out of our country.

Maybe what we need now, is a new law that makes it illegal for any agency to make, or implement, any policy or regulation that applies to citizens who do not work for that agency. And it should also make it clear that the onus for proving that any specific policy is necessary (and therefore, legal)to carry out the provisions of the governing law, lies with the agency making the policy.

All forms of gun control are prohibited in the Constitution.

I wouldn't necessarily say, "Irrespective of nationwide laws, states see the will of the people and the law and now forty-nine affirm the armed citizen." Rather I think what you meant to say there is that 49 states (IL as you mentioned, the only exception) offer some provision for CCW (concealed carried weapon).

About six or seven of those are "may issue," meaning that local law enforcement reserves the right to deny concealed-carry even if all criteria are met. In addition, many of the bluer states (including mine) have piles and piles of gun control laws - assault weapons bans, limitations on magazines, limitations on purchases, restrictions on ammunition sales and purchases, and more. There are still other weapons for which the mere possession is a felony, whereas they're perfectly legal in the next state over.

I see where you're going with this and I agree with you (no federal gun control at all)...the fact does remain that currently *most* of it does lie at the state or local level.

The only problem with your argument is that it does nothing to answer the obvious questions that will be thrown at you by the opposition:

- What provision do you make for keeping weapons out of the hands of the violent and criminally insane...or do you even make such a distinction?

- Under what circumstances is the use of guns to be legal? That is, when is lethal force permitted?

- What sorts of weapons would become legal to own? All ballistic weapons, including full-automatics? Weapons which can discharge an explosive projectile of some kind?

- Where do you stand on the ability of states to regulate weapon possession and use? Do they have a free hand, no such authority at all, or somewhere in-between?

Don't get me wrong, Mr Longnecker...I agree with you in principle. If you're speaking only in theory and not in application, you're on solid ground.

On the other hand, if you're actually proposing a repeal of all federal gun control, you simply must reinforce your argument to address some of these issues. It might do to simply say, "I want to repeal all federal gun control and fob the issue completely off on state governments."

I, Robot. I rest my case.

These are pretty good challenges, Cylar. Some question from the left are best answered by reminding them that they are questions without meaning. Sometimes, this applies. Other times, the answer is thoughtful and surprising in educating them.

Let's give it a shot.

"What provision do you make for keeping weapons out of the hands of the violent and criminally insane...or do you even make such a distinction?"

I make no provisioon for keeping guns out of their hands. It simply isn't going to happen. The best answer is the wise historic answer: "

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

That is to say that the best way to handle them is not with a criminal law which attempts to prevent them (a futility), but by enabling legislation which protects the rights of the target of violence to respond with all reasonable force. Short answer: get the government out of the way!

cont'd ..

"What sorts of weapons would become legal to own? All ballistic weapons, including full-automatics? Weapons which can discharge an explosive projectile of some kind?"

By being the Sovereign in this country, we already own all weapons. We own the police assets, we own the millitary assets, we own the jails and the floor of the Congress as the people's property. We own the machine guns in the Army and the thermonuclear devices in the Air Force and Navy.

The beauty of the repeal of all gun laws would apply to guns and the repeal would have the benefit of 'revisiting' policy, so to speak. America (90 million gun owners as an adult majority in the Vote) could then re-think the concept and give a nod to all guns and then make any restrictions as we see fit. Maybe we wouldn't elect to have restructions, because we have the gallows.

Unfortunately, many crimes are not solved because the repat offenders are a mix of known and unknown, and most murders are not solved.

But it's a problem I'd love to tackle. If we repealed all gun laws in the public interest, what gun laws would you then institute all over again?

Cont'd..

cont'd . .

"Under what circumstances is the use of guns to be legal? That is, when is lethal force permitted?"

This is already resolved on a case-by-case basis. The Castle Doctrine is a superb resolution, and the doctrine of the TARP - The Average Reasonable Person doctrine - is a conventional and reliable guideline.

I would not want a society of no penalty for unreasonable gun use. We as the Sovereign would have a task before us to do the reasonable and the proper, and that means that we have to define crimes as we define them. The only gun crime would be as an enhancement of an existing violent act without consent or legal privelege. Already settled.

That is to say that the latitude of legal gun use would be wide and range from carrying wherever we want, brandishing if reasonable and not a crime if it a warning or deterrent as one example of repealed unreasonable laws, and other uses.

The objective, Cylar, is to get rid of the power officials have over people to abuse powers, due process and so forth. I would repeal, for instance, brandishing as a crime and no regulations (almostj entirely none) of who and where one may carry.

Cont'd..

Cont'd . . .

"Where do you stand on the ability of states to regulate weapon possession and use? Do they have a free hand, no such authority at all, or somewhere in-between?"

Repeal all gun laws on the idea of carry, for instance, so it is not a crime for an armed parent or adult college student to carry on any campus, in any airport, public building, aboard civil aircraft, or anywhere else. No more petty bullshit.

No more federal laws on the subject. That's a start.

However, no state laws, either. At this time, many states do not require gun registration which, as I have posted here, means that they agree with us that the government does not need to know where the guns are.

Forty-ine states just got friendlier to the concept of the armed citizen. In wrapping it up, we need to continue that momentum and be the very best model citizens we can be.

When some lone wolf nut makes the news, our servants will know the difference as they have recently.

In fact, the lone wolf may not even be able to complete his mission if more citizens are armed in large enough numbers.

Some very good positions taken here, and i redily agree with most of them, ok...the Post Office, has their policy, I carry a conciled pistol any and just about every where I go, except the Vet. Adm. or VA....they can toss you out for good for that....one is out in my car, to be back in my pocket going home......It is good to hear that we can now CCW in 49 states, And I will carry in Ill. if i have reason to go there....We need to just continue to carry, and ignore the laws, some places may get hyper, but talk to them sanely, and in friendly terms, and you show your CC permit, and they may ask you to please put it bach in your auto....usually that is not a prob, especially if the place is crawling with law enf....Let me sum this up....Just carry anywhere you go, but be a bit discreet....Thank You all, JIMI

A PS please....i will agree with Mr. Weiland, It is my G-d given duty to protect my family, even in states like Cal. N.Y., Ill., and any other state, ...I will protect me and mine.....Thank You......JIMI

John,

Don't know where to begin - your best article EVER! I ask your permission, please, to use the phrase "Voilence is not fought by chasing it, it is fought by facing it". Great line.

Bruce A. Beatty

Technical Sergeant, USAF (Retired)

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”

– Cooper vs. Terrorism

Always glad to have you with me, Bruce. Good to hear from you.

Discussions are fabulously useful on the web. Spiders pick them up, keywords make them locatable and laymen get a little more education on the second amendment.

Yes, you can use my line in your discussions, Bruce. I have a short chapter called Quotes of the Author in my book Even Safer Streets 2011. Readers can get details at NationwideConcealedCarry-dot-com

If you like, you can use them, too.

Any liberty purists can use them if you deem them worthy.

It seems the goal of those that we have allowed to occupy positions in our government is to remove the Freedom and God given rights won by the blood of our founders and preserved by the blood of the generations that followed.

“We The People” have allowed our so called public servants to violate their oath of office with impunity in their quest to restore the type of tyranny we suffered under prior to our hard won independence.

Why do we sit idly by while our freedom is compromised? Is life so precious to us that we will calmly accept the new chains of servitude that are being fitted for us in the name of our safety?

The price of freedom has always had a high cost, are we now unwilling to pay the mortgage on our liberty and step forward to engage tyranny for a life of so called security?

We will all die one day, the big question is, do we do it as subjects of a ruling elite or as free men and women?

The debate on the second amendment is just distraction from the issue of the preservation of our Republic and the freedom it was created to protect.

Dear Oldshooter,

I agree with your post and I "feel your pain" concerning policies and the insatiable bureaucracies that create them.

But I’ll suggest you, one better. Instead of limiting the policies these bureaucratic behemoths belch forth, let's remove them altogether.

Have you ever questioned why you need a license to practice a God-given, Constitutionally enumerated, absolute right?

You aren't required to have a license to enjoy your other Constitutional rights.

Your 2nd Amendment rights are "to keep and bear arms", that means; 'to own and CARRY firearms". No infringement allowed. And that means; "No license required", among other things. So, carry and be safe.

Keep your powder dry,

Saint Peter

Anton: "The debate on the second amendment is just distraction from the issue of the preservation of our Republic and the freedom it was created to protect."How about this? "as the Christian head of my home, I am much more concerned about my God-given responsibility to keep and bear arms for the protection of my family, home, and possessions. Consequently, I am not a Second Amendment advocate. In fact, I believe Americans who tout the Second Amendment as their authority for their right to keep and bear arms may ultimately do more harm than good to their so-called right.

"Because this is a 'right' codified by the Constitutional Republic, and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can choose to divest its citizens of this right – something it has been doing incrementally for some time.

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. Most gun owners lauded the decision, but not this gun owner. Although I was pleased that the Supreme Court ruled as it did, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the Constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from a larger and much more consequential battle.

"Disconcerting as many people may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, it is even more disturbing that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise."

Excerpted from "Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical?" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.

If was feared that the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be interpreted to define the citizens rights instead of protecting those God given rights.

The powers of government were declared limited and defined with all powers not specifically granted to government were retained by “We the People”.

Our representative government has violated their oath of office and assumed a power that has no place in our Free Republic.

They have assumed all our rights as government granted rights as opposed to God given rights and through tyrannical dictate infringed our upon our God given rights.

The issue is not on how much they can infringe, violate and limit our rights ,the issue is that they are, through the brute force of government attempting to turn our Free Republic into a tyranny we abolished 236 years ago.

Arguing about the specifics on what they are doing distracts us all from the real issue of the government acting outside the constitutional limits they were hired to operate within.

We don’t need a court battle about the 2nd amendment or any other specific constitutional issue, we need a battle about the total unconstitutional actions of government period. We don’t need a balance budget amendment we need a simple way to check and rein in abusive government activities. If any amendment is needed it is a term limits amendment for all elected at all levels of government.

What we don’t need is a bunch of lawyers professing being an expert in constitutional law complicating a simple issue, what we need and have for a long time are people like you and I standing up to governmental tyranny to restore the freedom realized in the United States of America; A freedom pursued for thousands of years, throughout time and throughout the world and wished for by the world population.

Those that do not think it worth risking all for are ones who have no concept of what living under the yoke of tyranny has in store for them. If there are any questions all one needs to do is look at history and totalitarian governments that have imprisoned and killed the segments of their population that did not bow down to their brand of tyranny.

Anton, I appreciate your sentiments, but if you're a Christian, there is a much bigger issue, yet - the Constitution itself. Repeal the entire thing and replace it with a government based upon Yahweh's perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9)and all of the problems inherent and resulting from this Godless, Christless, secular, humanist, polytheistic promoting contract disappear with it. See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/articles.php.

Also, "One often hears (so often that it has almost become a mantra) that the Bill of Rights was based upon God-given rights.... This is interesting, to say the least.... I would challenge the reader to produce from the Scriptures evidence of any God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights but gifts and responsibilities from Yahweh. Rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone demands their rights, including homosexuals and infant murderers. On the other hand, few people are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities."

Excerpted from "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.php.

Outstanding article. Thanks for the permission to use your quotes in our fight. We the people, that are supposed to be the Government, have relegated that duty to professional politicians. This needs to change. I don't recall offhand, but one of the founders envisioned a government where John Q public went and served. After a few years, John Q would return home and resume his life. We need to get back to that concept instead of all of these Senators for life. If it take using our 2nd Amendment rights, so be it. We need to elect people to represent us that know what we go through on a daily basis. As it is right now, only the rich can afford to run for office. Look at the money Obama has raised. And he has a goal of 1 Billion dollars. Just to get re-elected. I can't afford that. How do we compete? We need to find the true patriots that believe the Constitution means what it says. We need to get them into offices from the local school board to the White House.

If there are to be limits on the kind of weapons we can buy, they should be limited to any weapon the government will use against us. If they can use tanks and hand grenades so can we.

Limit mentally ill people? Once again you have to draw a line and that line is political and will move left or right depending on who is in office. I say if we're going to take away someone's constitutional right to keep and bear arms, use a jury of 12 and a prosecution who must prove beyond any doubt that this person should not be armed.

John Longenecker, the author of the article, makes some good points, the best of which is, ". . . something we have seen blossom lately, and that is governing against the will of the people."

The Obama regime's ideology, in a nutshell, is a repudiation of our basic national principles and the attempt to establish a hegemonic federal government that controls and affects everything we do, including what cars we drive, what light bulbs we use and even what we eat.

The really scary part of that is so many Americans agree with Obama and see no problem with a government that controls the citizens, becoming the master, not the servant.

A Free Man has no need to ask permission!

James Boatright wrote @ 1:36 PM

“Whether, or not, the 2nd Amendment should be applied to the states is a debatable point”

I would suggest that a debate in not necessary. Anyone that thinks he 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states must explain why only the other nine amendments do. For example, there has never been objection to making the provisions of the 1st Amendment apply to all levels of government, even private sector news organizations. Singling out one amendment is not an issue worthy of discussion or debate…

>"This scandal has the potential to be a Watergate proportions"<

Only if the media gets behind reporting it as they did with Watergate.

Gun control is your worst shot being a wart 9 at maximum range.

Gun control only serves those who want to totally disarm the law abiding citizens of any state in this country. It has absolutely nothing to do with criminals. There are more than enough laws between the federal government and state governments to deal with, crime and criminals using guns illegally.

The anti's wnat to disarms us little by little and they have succeeded with bans on certain types of guns, magazines, etc. The politicians are also bad as soem of them cide with the anti gunners. When the anti's tout their "Sensibel gun laws" they should be thoroughly asaked what do they mean by that ? Make them explain it, and if what they say doesn't make snese tell them to bad. The Second Amendment has been put directly behind the First Amendment for a reason by Our Founding Fathers, all of whom were learned men. The pople inside and outside the poltical process that wnat to eradicate and eliminate this right altogether should be investigated,unfortunately we have an anti gun US Attorney General, and President. The antis and pols that support them are SUBVERSIVES and until they are actually investigated and they should for trying to eliminate and eradicate a Constitutional Right.The pols in DC that support them should also be brought up on appropriate charges Violation of Oath of Office and naythinh else that is applicable. The anti's will point to other countries where gun control has been in effect. In those countires the crime rate has soared and officials can't understand why? Question gun control at every level of government and that of the anti gun groups. If they succeed in getting rid of the Second Amendment what other amendment will be next to be lost? Think about it. Years ago I read an article in a gun magazine and the author made this statement, Those that propose to confiscate guns had better be prepared for the consequnces that will happen.

The states have proven tobe some of our best friends of liberty. Tenth Amendment Sovereignty is big among many, and de-centralization is actualized further by statements and positions of "stay away" to the feds on the in-state mfg of guns.

Constituional carry in Arizona is one such example. Tenth Amendment Center is always posting bulletins and commentaries on state sovereignty and de-centralization. Good place to RSS and bookmark. (And donate!)

What worries me is whether the predicted Senate refusal to ratify ATT (U.N. small arms treaty) will be enough. Some predict the Senate will not ratify it, but this is likely one of the things the Prez has promised gun control would be 'under the radar'. The Senate could and then again could not ratify it (they are rats, you know..) or it could amount to nothing even if they do refuse.

It's the stealth stuff that gets you.

For Pete: An excellent source of publicity on the scandal of Watergate proportions is War on Guns hosted weekday mornings on NBC's Arizona affiliate.

Got to NBC1260.com at 7 am weekdays Pacific Time and hear David Codrea's hour-long show. He has Mike Vanderboegh on every show with a new report weekdays.