PDA

View Full Version : Senator thinks 2nd amendment GIVES us a firearm right


winnre
03-01-2012, 9:20 PM
I hear about how we have the God-given inherent right to defend ourselves with firearms, and the 2nd Amendment is all about not letting anyone infringe on that right. Sound about right? So I write to my senator to complain about a firearm law issue and I get this canned reply. Check the part I highlighted in red. So we all need to correct her en masse?

----------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. M:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to gun control. I respect your opinion on this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

I recognize that there are many law-abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting, sport, or self-defense in a safe manner, and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun.

At the same time, the problem of gun violence in this country is a serious one. The assault weapon attack on four children and an adult at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles in 1999, the school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Universities, and the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was injured and six others were killed, are all examples of the tragic results of gun violence. To prevent such senseless acts of violence, I believe we need reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, unsupervised children, and the mentally deranged.

I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on gun control continues. Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

nicoroshi
03-01-2012, 9:26 PM
I got a very similar 'canned' reply to a lengthy letter I wrote to her quite a while ago.
Condensed it said something to the effect of, "I appreciate your point of view but pound sand because i am going to vote on party lines anyway"

I gave up writing to her, and now focus on trying to get her out of office.

taperxz
03-01-2012, 9:33 PM
Actually, coming from her, that's not a bad response. Problem is who does she consider a criminal, or a mentally deranged person? Unsupervised kids? In this country, they don't really get all rights under their parents care.

otteray
03-02-2012, 6:42 AM
I hear about how we have the God-given inherent right to defend ourselves with firearms, and the 2nd Amendment is all about not letting anyone infringe on that right. Sound about right? So I write to my senator to complain about a firearm law issue and I get this canned reply. Check the part I highlighted in red. So we all need to correct her en masse?

----------------------------------------------
Before you try that, here is how she really felt about it, responding to a similar question in late 2005:

Thank you for writing to me about the Second Amendment. I have spend a great deal of time working with this issue and would like to share my thoughts and analyses.

The National Rifle Association would like people to believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter how powerful or deadly, and that the government has no right to regulate in this area. However, the record is clear: the Super Court has never struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. I feel strongly about correcting what I call "the Second Amendment Myth," so let me go through some facts regarding this debate.

The Second Amendment says: 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 National Rifle Association (NRA) rarely mentions the words "well-regulated militia". In fact, most of their literature shortens the clause so that the amendment simple read "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clearly, the NRA is leaving out half of the story - the story of a time when our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that individual States would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal government by arming well-regulated State militias - in other words, today's National Guards.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years - ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United Stated v/ Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia (like the National Guard), the Seconded Amendment was not applicable to the case, said the Court.

All told, the Supreme Court has only chosen to address this issue two more times after the Miller case. And each time, the verdict was clear - the Second Amendment is not a bar to gun control laws. In 1969, in Burton v. Sills, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to New Jersey's strict gun control law, "for want of a substantial federal question/" Then, in the 1980 case of Lewis v/ United States, the Supreme Court held that "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutional suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutional protected liberties." And the Court continued that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to address this issue, but simple ruled to leave the established precedent in place, rather than take up the Second Amendment argument. Furthermore, at least twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court had held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

And the history is clear through countless cases in the lower federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal as well. Let me just cite a few recent examples. In 1999, in the case of Gillespie V/ City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal held that there Is no individual right to bear arms.

Also in 1999, the Ninth Circuit even more specifically address the "militia" question, clarifying that only a Sate militia, not a private militia, is covered by the Second Amendment.

I the 1998 case of People Rights Organization v. Columbus, the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn an ordinate banning assault weapons in Second Amendment groups.

In U.S. v. Scanion, also in 1998, the Second Circuit held that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to bear arms for State in organizing militia, and not an individual right.

The Third Circuit held in the 1996 U.S. v Rybar case that the defendant's possession of machine guns was not connected with militia-related activity and that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms.

The list of cases goes on and one - dozen of instance in Federal Courts of Appeal around the country, and countless others in the lower Federal District courts.

Perhaps this history is what led former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime… [the NRA] ha(s) mislead the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man." This was Warren Burger - a Nixon appointee to the Court.

Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right of any kind of weapon … [S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. This is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state government are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms…"

And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all of the NRA's rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they know that the Second Amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit reasonable control measures. In fat, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and my Assault Weapons Ban, the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the Second Amendment.

Nonetheless, many of the other side of this issue may point to the one, single, lone exception to the long history of Second Amendment jurisprudence.
On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while under a domestic restarting order. In the Texas case, a man in the midst of a divorce proceeding was accused of threatening to kill his wife's lover. Although put under a restraining order and therefore barred from possessing a firearm under federal law, the man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted for violating the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the effect of "criminalizing" a "law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights."

This was the first time such a decision was made by a federal judge, but it is important to note that this decision has been appealed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if the case reached that level, would uphold this decision. Since that 1999 decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, had ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Once again, thank you for writing me with your concerns. I have given a great deal of though on this issue and so I hope this letter servers to clear up my position on this issue.

Sincerely,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Nov. 2005

bcj128
03-02-2012, 6:51 AM
My how times have changed...

johnny_22
03-02-2012, 6:58 AM
Are the typos in the original?

inapirekim
03-02-2012, 7:04 AM
This is one reason I believe all politicians should have term limits. She has held her office for nearly twenty years, and that is far too long.

Curley Red
03-02-2012, 7:18 AM
It is all about interpretation. You still own firearms, so they feel you still have your second amendment rights. The 2A does not say how you can carry, it just says you have the rights to firearms.

For me it is like a building code, I can have one plan reviewer see the code one way and then go to a different plan reviewer and he sees it another way.

Times were easier back when they wrote the amendments, people took things for how they were written, but now people have to look at things from many different angles.

SilverTauron
03-02-2012, 7:41 AM
To prevent such senseless acts of violence, I believe we need reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, unsupervised children, and the mentally deranged.

To those of Feinstein's ilk, this goal justifies the abrogation of the 2nd Amendment and any rights therein recognized. The only measure these people consider reasonable is an outright ban on civilian owned firearms.

Mr. Burns
03-02-2012, 7:42 AM
It is all about interpretation.

Unfortunately people have made it that way.

The 2A does not say how you can carry, it just says you have the rights to firearms.

It does say that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means I can carry any way I want and any restrictions are unconstitutional.

Times were easier back when they wrote the amendments, people took things for how they were written, but now people have to look at things from many different angles.


So true.





Sure is sad that this is an issue when the Bill Of Rights outlines it crystal clear. :(

Manolito
03-02-2012, 7:46 AM
If it wasn't for firearms she would still be a back water local politician in San Francisco. She was on the city counsel when Dan White came in and shot Masconi and Milke. Leaving her in charge by default. This is what she launched her career on.
Boxer and Feinstein live in an area that loves their thinking and no single candidate will remove them from office.
note also Feinstein has a weapons permit and carries or did last time I looked into it.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalpersonalprofiles/p/SenFeinstein.htm

winnre
03-02-2012, 8:03 AM
But the National Guard was not established until 1903.

soopafly
03-02-2012, 9:02 AM
So we all need to correct her en masse?


It's Feinswine...you'll get better results lecturing to that loaf you pinched off the other day.

IVC
03-02-2012, 9:12 AM
----------------------------------------------
Before you try that, here is how she really felt about it, responding to a similar question in late 2005:

At a risk of being flamed, that is a very coherent and rational position based on the detailed research and analysis of court cases at that time, completely objective and with almost no subjective component.

If we are to request that antis be rational in light of the new rulings, we must accept the rational aspects of their positions pre-Heller. This is also a very good reading for those who think current cases are moving too slowly through the courts - it takes a lot of time to change such a set course.

Probably the most important point out of that letter is that we need to build a strong "portfolio" of positive decisions in order to counter all the previous rulings. Only when the tide turns will the fight become easier.

IVC
03-02-2012, 9:28 AM
But the National Guard was not established until 1903.

This is one of those argument-counter-argument talking points that keeps popping up, but this one in particular is a really bad example and we should not ever bring it up after Heller settled 2A as an individual right.

The problem is that we want to argue that 2A protects modern firearms, which were introduced in the latter half of the 20th century. If we follow the "National Guard Argument", we are essentially saying that 2A cannot protect firearms which didn't exist at the time of introduction of 2A (which is a point some antis have tried to make). This would be both very bad and incorrect.

One can argue that the "National Guard" is a "modern counterpart" of the "well regulated militia" in much the same way one can argue a "Glock" is a "modern counterpart" of the "flintlock".

The way to look at the National Guard Argument is to dismiss it as a collective interpretation which is now explicitly rejected through a SCOTUS ruling without going into timing details. If the 2A had been ruled a collective right, the National Guard argument would most likely stand even though there is chronological "inconsistency".

24Sailor
03-02-2012, 10:59 AM
I believe they (they being gun elimination advocates) would love to drop one word from 2A: It's also, unfortunately for them, the third word of the preamble. Once a higher court sees 2A in that light justice will be done. 2A covers two things, state's right's and individual citizen's rights and separates them with a comma.

mofugly13
03-02-2012, 11:16 AM
I believe they (they being gun elimination advocates) would love to drop one word from 2A: It's also, unfortunately for them, the third word of the preamble. Once a higher court sees 2A in that light justice will be done. 2A covers two things, state's right's and individual citizen's rights and separates them with a comma.

If you ever see/hear one of the Brady officials quote the 2nd, they frequently leave out "of the people." Dennis Hennigan comes to mind. Here's a youtube vid of him misquoting the 2nd.

o1cYzATHcqA

CBlacksheep
03-02-2012, 1:52 PM
One can argue that the "National Guard" is a "modern counterpart" of the "well regulated militia" in much the same way one can argue a "Glock" is a "modern counterpart" of the "flintlock".

Don't forget that the National Guard is overseen by a federal bureau, supplied with federally purchased weapons and ammunition that they keep in an armory where they are maintained and serviced by someone other than themselves, and is regularly activated for federal service overseas. So not only does that alone directly contradict even the most liberal dissection of the second amendment, but it also makes no case for the National Guard = Civilian Militia argument.

press1280
03-02-2012, 4:15 PM
It shows how much in retreat these folks now are. The old position of no one having a right to own a gun is now a radical one.

Drivedabizness
03-02-2012, 4:32 PM
She thinks we have a right to own a gun.

Which guns? Any gun (certainly not)? Ammo? (not unless it is "approved" by her and her type). Stored where? Under what kind of restrictions?

Note she doesn't address the "bear" portion of the right. She doesn't believe you have a right to bear. She believes you have a very limited privilege to bear for approved sport, hunting and self defense purposes (maybe - not much) but in the home only.

She is unworthy of her high office and is a great example of someone who needs to be shown the door.

microwaveguy
03-02-2012, 4:35 PM
I gave up writing to her, and now focus on trying to get her out of office.

The only way she will leave is if some medical condition prevents her from serving.

RRangel
03-02-2012, 4:37 PM
She believes in the Second Amendment all right. For Senators and the like.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,...

MudCamper
03-02-2012, 7:24 PM
I recognize that there are many law-abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting, sport, or self-defense in a safe manner, and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun.

For a statement like that to come from Senator Feinstein shows that we are winning. It's actually quite amazing coming from her. Before Heller and McDonald, she'd never say anything anywhere near that favorable.

HumGuns
03-02-2012, 7:28 PM
For a statement like that to come from Senator Feinstein shows that we are winning. It's actually quite amazing coming from her. Before Heller and McDonald, she'd never say anything anywhere near that favorable.

And in the next couple of years one of her staffers will have to amend that to read 'carry'. :43:

resident-shooter
03-02-2012, 7:57 PM
For a statement like that to come from Senator Feinstein shows that we are winning. It's actually quite amazing coming from her. Before Heller and McDonald, she'd never say anything anywhere near that favorable.

word. For some raging anti like Feinstein, this shows just got cornered the antis are after heller and mcdonald. Now who is forcing ideology up hooz АSS? :cool2:

Barkoff
03-02-2012, 8:21 PM
I hear about how we have the God-given inherent right to defend ourselves with firearms, and the 2nd Amendment is all about not letting anyone infringe on that right. Sound about right? So I write to my senator to complain about a firearm law issue and I get this canned reply. Check the part I highlighted in red. So we all need to correct her en masse?

----------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. M:

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to gun control. I respect your opinion on this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

I recognize that there are many law-abiding gun owners who use their weapons for activities such as hunting, sport, or self-defense in a safe manner, and I support an individual's Second Amendment right to own a gun.

At the same time, the problem of gun violence in this country is a serious one. The assault weapon attack on four children and an adult at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles in 1999, the school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Universities, and the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was injured and six others were killed, are all examples of the tragic results of gun violence. To prevent such senseless acts of violence, I believe we need reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, unsupervised children, and the mentally deranged.

I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on gun control continues. Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


The problem is, their solutions seldom do any of the targeted, rather just add more restriction, costs and regulation on those who she claims are not the targets. Maybe she needs to reassess their strategy.

marcusrn
03-03-2012, 8:34 AM
Twenty six years ago DiFi told Richard Ramirez aka"the nightstalker" to throw his shoes off the SF bridge basically to get rid of dambing evidence.

Just about every federal,state, and local law officer in this state called her an idiot at the same instant and she was not moved in the least.

She is what we in the rustic border counties would call "sin verguenza".

And of course she would armed and we would not, simply because it is along the border.

ap3572001
03-03-2012, 9:09 AM
2ND Amendment....

Means people have a right to have guns.

But there are many factors.

People can own any gun? A full auto M16? HKMP5? M60?

Does that mean the government can or can not control what guns can be owned? Who can and can't own them ? WHat ammo can and cant be used?

Can a firearm be carried ? How can it be carried ? WHere it can be carried?

How about what the gun rights mean to different people?

To me , ability to buy a centerfire , compact pistol ,couple of magazines and some decent ammunition and LEGALLY carry it concealed to protect myself and my family from violent criminals means A LOT MORE than all the AR's , AK's, Rosters , magazines etc.

To someone else it is more important to have AK's with a drum in their closet,

People are different .

Interpretation is different.

IVC
03-03-2012, 9:17 AM
2ND Amendment....

Means people have a right to have guns.

To be blunt, it doesn't. The right to self defense is the fundamental part that has nothing to do with any constitution, nation, location, etc. The 2A prevents government from infringing upon that right. Otherwise, it grants no right to the people at all.

In that light, not all regulation is infringement, but more importantly, much of what is called "common sense gun control" is indeed an infringement. It comes down to finding the balance. Not much different than all the litigation surrounding 1A (both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly).

ap3572001
03-03-2012, 9:32 AM
To ME the biggest infringement in some states have to do with CCW.

Ability to legally carry a decent handgun with a reload or two and have nice Benelli or Remington 12 ga in the house would DEFINITELY allow people to defend themselves.

IVC
03-03-2012, 9:40 AM
To ME the biggest infringement in some states have to do with CCW.

Few would argue this point. The most significant next case to reach the Supreme Court is planned to be about carrying, i.e., defining "bear".

Ability to legally carry a decent handgun with a reload or two and have nice Benelli or Remington 12 ga in the house would DEFINITELY allow people to defend themselves.

Sure would, but that is not a cause to ban everything else. The bar is a bit higher when it comes to a constitutionally protected right. Since you are from San Francisco, here is an example that might make more sense. A statement: "Ability to have sex within a heterosexual matrimony DEFINITELY allows humankind to procreate" is completely correct. However, it doesn't justify, well... all sorts of "bans" that you could derive from it.

ap3572001
03-03-2012, 11:19 AM
Few would argue this point. The most significant next case to reach the Supreme Court is planned to be about carrying, i.e., defining "bare".



Sure would, but that is not a cause to ban everything else. The bar is a bit higher when it comes to a constitutionally protected right. Since you are from San Francisco, here is an example that might make more sense. A statement: "Ability to have sex within a heterosexual matrimony DEFINITELY allows humankind to procreate" is completely correct. However, it doesn't justify, well... all sorts of "bans" that you could derive from it.

I understand.

I was just saying that UNDERSTANDING of 2ND Amendment is different from person to person .

ewarmour
03-03-2012, 2:16 PM
Boxer and Feinstein live in an area that loves their thinking and no single candidate will remove them from office.

If we can capitalize on the PIPA/SOPA debacle, seeing as Feinstein and Boxer supported that abortion, maybe we can get a broader spectrum of Californians to vote both of those trolls out of office.

winnre
03-03-2012, 6:33 PM
People are different .

Interpretation is different.

Maybe that's why they said SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Kinda clear to all.

jimhu
03-03-2012, 8:29 PM
On interpreting the 2A

The 2A is sentences separated by a comma. In modern English this is not correct, but back then, who knows. Anyway, I wonder how in modern English can these 2 sentences be connected.

1) a semicolon (I think this is most probable)
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.

2) an 'and' (most commonly used in English
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

3) a 'but' (also common)
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

4) 'if'
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This doesn't go well with 'shall'

5) 'however'
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, however the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The point, the way the 2A is written, one cannot say that the right to keep and bear arms is ONLY for a militia. Show me how you would right that.

Also, it says the right to "KEEP and BEAR" , so just to KEEP is not enough.

gobler
03-03-2012, 8:48 PM
The sad part is all you have to do is read the letters of our founders to "decipher" what the 2nd A meant to them and us. It's just that most modern day law makers & judges have been taught case law and have never read the founders works. :( :mad:

grommit666
03-03-2012, 9:53 PM
On interpreting the 2A:

The two clauses need to separated by a comma rather than a semicolon. A semicolon demands two independent clauses. But the first clause of the 2A is a dependent clause since it lacks a predicate.

That said, it's not clear to me the intent of the first clause. An individual right could have been unambiguously asserted without it. If 2A does not assert an individual right, it is meaningless.

ap3572001
03-04-2012, 8:38 AM
To keep ( to have , to own) . To bear (to carry in ready to use condition )

Does that mean to own ANY kind of guns? Does bear mean to carry anywhere? In any manner?

So I guess because I can't buy and carry an HK MP5 , they are attacking my 2ND Amendment rights?

Just trying to make some sense out of it.

How about if they will have a Federal Shall Issue CCW's for the whole country, but limit us in some other area (AW's, Magaiznes,etc) ?
Does that mean that the 2ND Amendment is still in trouble?

Someone can say that the 2ND Amendment in its purest form would mean no gun laws at all. Right?

ja308
03-04-2012, 10:54 AM
[QUOTE=inapirekim;8143356]This is one reason I believe all politicians should have term limits. She has held her office for nearly twenty years, and that is far too long.[/QUOTE

Yup , look at how much freedom we gained in cali with term limits .
Suggest you re think your comment.:43:

ja308
03-04-2012, 11:11 AM
" To preserve liberty,it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike,especially when young,how to use them "
Richard Henry Lee

Wonder if sen feinsein would agree ?

IVC
03-04-2012, 6:20 PM
Someone can say that the 2ND Amendment in its purest form would mean no gun laws at all. Right?

Not quite. If you want to make sense out of it, compare it to 1A. There are many restrictions on how/what/when one can say and how/what/when a group can assemble. Yet, they are not infringing on the 1A right (at least the settled cases).

When one fundamental right is in conflict with another fundamental right the line must be drawn. The key, though, is to understand that there must be a conflict of rights, not just a whim of the legislators or community thinking it is "socially unacceptable".

Without going into too many details, 2A will never protect dueling in the streets (the old west style), or brandishing firearms for the purpose of intimidation. These are not infringements. However, many of the current restrictions in gun-unfriendly states are indeed infringements and will have to be modified. In the process, a much more clear line will be drawn between what is and isn't an infringement.

winnre
03-05-2012, 9:28 AM
To keep ( to have , to own) . To bear (to carry in ready to use condition )

Does that mean to own ANY kind of guns? Does bear mean to carry anywhere? In any manner?

Yes, typically the ones that the military uses. We ought to have the same access. And why not? Now as for cannon and artillery, they do not come under the category of "arms" and are not addressed in the Constitution.

IVC
03-05-2012, 9:54 AM
Yes, typically the ones that the military uses. We ought to have the same access. And why not?

This is likely to be the angle we should push for, possibly replacing "military" with "police" as police are the ones who are armed to match the daily internal threats of the society. The argument being that if it's suitable for police protection, it should be suitable for personal protection.

However, even the SCOTUS explicitly rejected the "any weapon/any place/any method of carry" argument, implying that some restrictions are reasonable. For example, what SWAT team or military carry might be restricted in densely populated areas such as urban centers due to the lack of self defense applicability. However, these restrictions should not automatically apply to simple possession or usage in remote areas as there are completely different safety considerations there.

george223
03-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Everytime I hear someone, like Feinstein, misinterpret the 2nd ammendant, it really pisses me off. The Bill of Rights was not created to preserve the government's rights, rights the the gov would have by default anyway. The Bill of Rights was created to preserve individual rights, the PEOPLE!!!! Diane, how hard is that to understand?

dalriaden
03-05-2012, 11:09 AM
Should send her U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg ruling in Md.

“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” he wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Quser.619
03-05-2012, 4:17 PM
While I'm in no ways a Feinstein supporter, at least she bothers to respond. Try writing Boxer & you'll never get a response.

There I was finally able to say something nice about someone I thoroughly despise

Quser.619
03-05-2012, 4:17 PM
While I'm in no ways a Feinstein supporter, at least she bothers to respond. Try writing Boxer & you'll never get a response.

There I was finally able to say something nice about someone I thoroughly despise