LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:19 am For Christ's sake, read the decision. Even Scalia's painfully outcome determinative analysis allows for substantial regulation, and indicates that Congress and the states may regulate the type of weapons used in these tragedies:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:41 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:19 am For Christ's sake, read the decision. Even Scalia's painfully outcome determinative analysis allows for substantial regulation, and indicates that Congress and the states may regulate the type of weapons used in these tragedies:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Your preaching to the choir Mr Coaster. I have said all along these weapons should be more strictly regulated. I not a fan of people owning these weapons. Your a lawyer with many years of practicing your craft. My question is how do we as a nation balance "well regulated" and not cross the line clearly put forward in the 2nd that states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? That is what this entire discussion is based on. My problem is the folks who want ALL of these weapons banned and confiscated from law abiding citizens who purchased them legally. You do understand the chitstorm that would create? You think law enforcement wants to deal with that? They can't even get illegal guns under control. How excited would law enforcement be trying to enforce a nation wide ban? How do you think that scenario plays out counselor??? Where do we as a nation redraw the lines when it comes to "well regulated" ? Being perfectly honest.. I have no idea and I'm not sure anybody else does either.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:41 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 7:19 am For Christ's sake, read the decision. Even Scalia's painfully outcome determinative analysis allows for substantial regulation, and indicates that Congress and the states may regulate the type of weapons used in these tragedies:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Your preaching to the choir Mr Coaster. I have said all along these weapons should be more strictly regulated. I not a fan of people owning these weapons. Your a lawyer with many years of practicing your craft. My question is how do we as a nation balance "well regulated" and not cross the line clearly put forward in the 2nd that states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? That is what this entire discussion is based on. My problem is the folks who want ALL of these weapons banned and confiscated from law abiding citizens who purchased them legally. You do understand the chitstorm that would create? You think law enforcement wants to deal with that? They can't even get illegal guns under control. How excited would law enforcement be trying to enforce a nation wide ban? How do you think that scenario plays out counselor??? Where do we as a nation redraw the lines when it comes to "well regulated" ? Being perfectly honest.. I have no idea and I'm not sure anybody else does either.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not relying on the words "well-regulated" to say that guns can be regulated. I'm saying that the purpose intended by the founders in having citizens have arms was to support a "well regulated Militia"...not for use against other citizens or the constitutional government itself, but rather for the "security of a free State". Protection of the country. In a "well regulated Militia". That's the purpose that the founders established. The right to have arms is dependent upon that purpose.

And, you are quite incorrect: SCOTUS has multiple times decided, including jurists like Scalia, that the Constitution allows for restrictions on the type of guns allowed and other such restrictions. Restrictions are therefore "constitutional'.

Yes, your shotgun would be acceptable in my own recommended set of restrictions. I'd be fine, however, if you and I were required to keep ours in a locked closet, cabinet, gun safe, etc such that access was limited to the licensed adults. I'm fine with any such being licensed, including required gun safety courses.

You can keep your M1 at a licensed, regulated gun range, gun safety storage unit, in my recommended regulatory regime.

Background checks on all gun transfers...red flag laws, all would be useful in my regulatory system, but far less necessary given the basic restrictions on where certain types of guns can be kept and used.

Yes, it would take time and patience to get this implemented.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not relying on the words "well-regulated" to say that guns can be regulated. I'm saying that the purpose intended by the founders in having citizens have arms was to support a "well regulated Militia"...not for use against other citizens or the constitutional government itself, but rather for the "security of a free State". Protection of the country. In a "well regulated Militia". That's the purpose that the founders established. The right to have arms is dependent upon that purpose.

And, you are quite incorrect: SCOTUS has multiple times decided, including jurists like Scalia, that the Constitution allows for restrictions on the type of guns allowed and other such restrictions. Restrictions are therefore "constitutional'.

Yes, your shotgun would be acceptable in my own recommended set of restrictions. I'd be fine, however, if you and I were required to keep ours in a locked closet, cabinet, gun safe, etc such that access was limited to the licensed adults. I'm fine with any such being licensed, including required gun safety courses.

You can keep your M1 at a licensed, regulated gun range, gun safety storage unit, in my recommended regulatory regime.

Background checks on all gun transfers...red flag laws, all would be useful in my regulatory system, but far less necessary given the basic restrictions on where certain types of guns can be kept and used.

Yes, it would take time and patience to get this implemented.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:40 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not relying on the words "well-regulated" to say that guns can be regulated. I'm saying that the purpose intended by the founders in having citizens have arms was to support a "well regulated Militia"...not for use against other citizens or the constitutional government itself, but rather for the "security of a free State". Protection of the country. In a "well regulated Militia". That's the purpose that the founders established. The right to have arms is dependent upon that purpose.

And, you are quite incorrect: SCOTUS has multiple times decided, including jurists like Scalia, that the Constitution allows for restrictions on the type of guns allowed and other such restrictions. Restrictions are therefore "constitutional'.

Yes, your shotgun would be acceptable in my own recommended set of restrictions. I'd be fine, however, if you and I were required to keep ours in a locked closet, cabinet, gun safe, etc such that access was limited to the licensed adults. I'm fine with any such being licensed, including required gun safety courses.

You can keep your M1 at a licensed, regulated gun range, gun safety storage unit, in my recommended regulatory regime.

Background checks on all gun transfers...red flag laws, all would be useful in my regulatory system, but far less necessary given the basic restrictions on where certain types of guns can be kept and used.

Yes, it would take time and patience to get this implemented.

Yeah, but what about feral pigs?

https://twitter.com/VICENews/status/1529969915435835475

The country is in trouble; we need serious people. We have a two-party system, in which one party isn't delivering serious candidates.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:46 am As someone responded on Twitter to the feral pig nonsense - if you need an AR-15 to deal with feral pigs, you probably should not be living anywhere near where you would find feral pigs...

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 10:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not relying on the words "well-regulated" to say that guns can be regulated. I'm saying that the purpose intended by the founders in having citizens have arms was to support a "well regulated Militia"...not for use against other citizens or the constitutional government itself, but rather for the "security of a free State". Protection of the country. In a "well regulated Militia". That's the purpose that the founders established. The right to have arms is dependent upon that purpose.

And, you are quite incorrect: SCOTUS has multiple times decided, including jurists like Scalia, that the Constitution allows for restrictions on the type of guns allowed and other such restrictions. Restrictions are therefore "constitutional'.

Yes, your shotgun would be acceptable in my own recommended set of restrictions. I'd be fine, however, if you and I were required to keep ours in a locked closet, cabinet, gun safe, etc such that access was limited to the licensed adults. I'm fine with any such being licensed, including required gun safety courses.

You can keep your M1 at a licensed, regulated gun range, gun safety storage unit, in my recommended regulatory regime.

Background checks on all gun transfers...red flag laws, all would be useful in my regulatory system, but far less necessary given the basic restrictions on where certain types of guns can be kept and used.

Yes, it would take time and patience to get this implemented.

I understand your point and I don't think I'm misrepresenting what you mean at all. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever let my M1 carbine to be stored in a government run safe place. That is a prime example of what over regulation gets you. I'm very lucky in the fact my M1 carbine was a gift from my brother. It is not registered in any government data base. The government can't regulate or confiscate something they don't even know exists. My M1 is something I own that reminds me of my dad and how much he suffered for this country. You think I don't have a right to own that weapon I will politely as I can tell you to go to hell. My 410 is located in a spot where I can get to it in 5 seconds if someone ever tries to break into my house. It would not do me much effing good if it was locked in a safe denying me immediate access to it. My wife knows where it is and understands the gameplan if it is ever needed. My 410 is the insurance policy I hope I will never need.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 10:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 10:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:31 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:37 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:13 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 3:30 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:38 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us ... index.html

CNN is just spinning

We have a 2nd amendment given to this nation by our founding fathers. I'm certain that came about for a good reason. Who knows, maybe they were bored that day and came up with it as filler until they figured out the 3rd amendment?? Maybe the 2nd was nothing more than a belated April Fools prank?

Who on this board, other than you and maybe Peter (fine company to be in, eh) keeps repeating that the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated? Who you like this weekend?

When or where did I say the 2nd was under threat from anyone or anything? I'm saying to ban handguns and semi automatic weapons you first have to address the right to keep and bear arms. No one on this forum yet had explained how to address this little conundrum.

Nope, I did.

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.

The purpose of this "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State"...the State, BTW, refers to the national union, not any specific or several states....it's important to the security of the country to have a well regulated Militia...in the era of the founding, there was no standing army, so being able to call up people to service was important, and to have them well "regulated" meant that they were well equipped and trained and organizable. Now, since then, we've addressed this need with our Reserves system, which enables actual well armed, equipped, trained "militia" to be ready for such action.

thus, far less need for the general citizenry...that said, we've decided as a country to recognize people's rights to have guns...to some extent...and we've also litigated and decided (SCOTUS) that this 'right" may be limited in the interests of public good. For instance, machine guns are not allowed for general citizen use and ownership. As well as all sorts of restrictions on how and where guns may be used. That alone, is sufficient precedent for any number of restrictions contemplated today.

So, to me, this 2nd amendment argument really has no actual bearing. The serious questions are simply what restrictions have made sense.

I've proposed that only certain kinds of weapons should be kept in homes, they should only be kept there by those licensed and trained to have such weapons, storage requirements, etc. Hunting being one such permitted, licensed usage. Other sorts of weapons such as handguns and semi and fully automatic weapons should not be in the home, rather they can be kept in regulated, licensed gun ranges and storage, useful for sport in such settings, and come the apocalypse, retrievable as necessary.

I read your input and agree you have some good points. Nowhere does the 2nd, no matter how you interpret well regulated, limits gun owners to only certain type of weapons. So your turning well regulated into something out government does very well.. over regulating. I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons. I understand why so many people prefer them as their home defence weapon of choice. The problem is since there are untold millions of these weapons already in American homes trying to regulate them now is more than problematic it is impossible. I agree with you that these weapo ns should be more regulated. The sticking point is what weapons the average citizen determine wants to keep and bear. I don't think they want or need the government making that choice for them. I own 2 rifles. My M1 carbine is sentimental to me. It is the same type of rifle my dad carried through France, Belgium and Germany. On rare occasions I take it out plinking. My other weapon for home defense would get the MD lax seal of approval, a single barrel 410 shotgun. It is my last line of defense if someone ever breaks into my home. I hope everyday that I never need it. I understand your position and I respect it. I wish the founding fathers had not left so much ambiguity built into the 2nd. Trying to define a list of semi automatic weapons has proven almost impossible. You need look no further than the SAFE ACT that king Andy rammed through in NYS. They became totally befuddled about how a certain rifle looks instead of understanding the dynamics and lethality of all of these 5.56 weapons. You want to ban them all and confiscate them from law abiding citizens good luck with that. I'm sure you understand just how impossible your solution is in realville USA. These people have been afraid for years that the government is coming for their guns you just verified all of their concerns by saying yeah.. the government SHOULD be coming for your guns.

You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.

No, I'm not relying on the words "well-regulated" to say that guns can be regulated. I'm saying that the purpose intended by the founders in having citizens have arms was to support a "well regulated Militia"...not for use against other citizens or the constitutional government itself, but rather for the "security of a free State". Protection of the country. In a "well regulated Militia". That's the purpose that the founders established. The right to have arms is dependent upon that purpose.

And, you are quite incorrect: SCOTUS has multiple times decided, including jurists like Scalia, that the Constitution allows for restrictions on the type of guns allowed and other such restrictions. Restrictions are therefore "constitutional'.

Yes, your shotgun would be acceptable in my own recommended set of restrictions. I'd be fine, however, if you and I were required to keep ours in a locked closet, cabinet, gun safe, etc such that access was limited to the licensed adults. I'm fine with any such being licensed, including required gun safety courses.

You can keep your M1 at a licensed, regulated gun range, gun safety storage unit, in my recommended regulatory regime.

Background checks on all gun transfers...red flag laws, all would be useful in my regulatory system, but far less necessary given the basic restrictions on where certain types of guns can be kept and used.

Yes, it would take time and patience to get this implemented.

I understand your point and I don't think I'm misrepresenting what you mean at all. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever let my M1 carbine to be stored in a government run safe place. That is a prime example of what over regulation gets you. I'm very lucky in the fact my M1 carbine was a gift from my brother. It is not registered in any government data base. The government can't regulate or confiscate something they don't even know exists. My M1 is something I own that reminds me of my dad and how much he suffered for this country. You think I don't have a right to own that weapon I will politely as I can tell you to go to hell. My 410 is located in a spot where I can get to it in 5 seconds if someone ever tries to break into my house. It would not do me much effing good if it was locked in a safe denying me immediate access to it. My wife knows where it is and understands the gameplan if it is ever needed. My 410 is the insurance policy I hope I will never need.

Yup, in my regulatory regime, you'd need to have gun safety course license to have such weapons. I'd be ok (as a regulator) in an 'antique' gun having its firing mechanism removed, and stored in a gun safe. Or in a private, but licensed, regulated gun range if you want to use it in such an environment.

I don't think we need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

BTW, on your safety issues, I know that you no longer have kids in the house...that's the most important reason to keep weapons in a safe. But it's also important for there to be at least some delay between wanting a weapon and using it, for a number of reason, including domestic issues...though I dunno that a gun safe really is much of a brake on that...but for safety versus intruders, I think there are layers of safety measures that should be in place prior to any reliance on a gun. A gun should never be used in surprise or panic, it should be only resorted to when no other measure can work and only when calm...else the wrong person gets shot.

Again, take a gun safety course...

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 11:26 am Yesterday, Michigan Democrats tried to pass a law exempting gun locks and safes from sales tax, and also making it a misdemeanor with a fine if a firearm is not stored safely and is used in a shooting by a minor. Gun stores would inform buyers of the law upon each gun sale.

Republicans blocked it.

Not limiting 2A rights, not taking guns, just trying to get people to store their guns more safely so kids don't find them and shoot themselves or others on purpose or on accident.

So much for "meeting in the middle"...

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 12:11 pm John Fugelsang@JohnFugelsang

Last year Greg Abbott lowered the age to buy guns in texas from 21 to 18.
This week's killer bought the guns the day he turned 18.
But hey, he lowered flags.



Gov. Greg Abbott
@GovAbbott
Directing the Texas flag be immediately lowered to half-staff statewide on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, in memory of those who lost their lives in a shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. http://gov.texas.gov/flag-status