[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

I think they wanna keep guns out of the hands of gangmembers than say moose hunters. Handgun violence and associated crime is a serious issue in big cities like DC, Baltimore & Philadelphia. I dont think people buying weapons legally over the counter at a walmart should worry too much.

Understand though that those areas with high gun crime rates have the tools to decrease criminal use of guns but choose not to.

Philadelphia is particularly absurd in that the politicians declare straw buying is a big problem but then tell the BATF to stop sending multiple purchase reports because it was getting too expensive to comply with the destruction rules. Instead of investigating actual multiple purchasers and the disposition of the guns it is far easier to just say, "let's just go with a one gun a month law . . ." and that my friend does impact the law-abiding citizen.

Originally Posted by Flaptail

Really now, do you think the big bad Obama is coming after your shotgun or 22cal.?

No, maybe the assault weapons . . . but actual hunting weapons?

Not even on the radar screen.

The calls to ban "armor piercing ammunition" sound wonderful cause after all, who's for shooting cops? . . . But when the criteria to ban a certain loading is simply its ability to defeat the Class II body armor worn by patrol officers, just about every centerfire rifle cartridge would meet that threshold; even Dad's old .30-30.

Ask a military man what an AP chambering is and you will get a much different answer than the one Ted Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer or Carolyn McCarthy gives you.

Next question, how do those fine politicians define a "sniper rifle?" Look out, an old scoped Model 70 sub MOA .300 WinMag meets all those criteria too . . .

Originally Posted by bssb

I believe if you have a hunting licence should be able to own a hunting riffle. Other than that I don't think anyone not in the millitary, NG, or police force should have one.

Well then, sorry to break the news but you harbor beliefs which are diametrically opposed to the fundamental philosophical principles of this nation and thus, the very Constitution which establishes our government.

Originally Posted by bssb

In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun.

Only in agenda driven gun death stats are 19 year old's called "kids."

In 1999 the REAL total number of "kids" (up to 17 years 364 days old) that died from gunshot from all intents was 1776. That number comprises 1001 homicides, 558 suicides, 158 unintentional (accidental) deaths, 50 of undetermined cause and 9 due to legal intervention (police or justifiable homicide by a citizen).

Originally Posted by bssb

Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year.

And????

Are you arguing that by adding those millions of guns, gun murders go up? Hmmmmm, how then can the USA have over 2000 fewer gun homicides in 2005 then in 1989?

Originally Posted by bssb

The domestic production of pistols has doubled since 1980, . . . In 1980, pistols made up less than 15 percent of total firearm production in the U.S.; by 1993, they had climbed to 40 percent.

Three letters explain that . . . CCW

Originally Posted by bssb

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms.

Absolutely an incorrect reading of Presser bordering on a dishonest misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by bssb

Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!

And that is a dishonest misrepresentation; actually Presser states the opposite.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays, "states rights." The states are barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are also the resource upon which the security of the federal government depends.

This is interesting also because it says the mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment and the protection of the right exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" (those laid out specifically in the Constitution) and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the "general powers" of the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a complementary power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding principles.

The republican government that the founders embraced and established has, as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it). The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in a un-republican fashion, such as disarming the citizens.

Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same people for their security.

Presser makes it very clear that the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states and their militia regulation power. If it did, the Court would have applied the Amendment's scope and restriction on the two tiered federal power that binds the states from "prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms," not a state's power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.

Originally Posted by bssb

In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia.

Where do you get this stuff? Before Heller this line of reasoning was just nonsensical; after Heller it is delusional.

Originally Posted by bssb

Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed frustration with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never embraced the states right / collective right theory and in Heller the Court stated that no previous SCOTUS decisions could be read to dismiss the individual rights model.

The "state's right" theory was first introduced in the lower federal court system in 1942. And yes, since then, several lower federal courts have dismissed and ridiculed the individual right model but the unanimous statement in Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right has exposed the "state's right" cases to challenge if not directly overruling them.

US v Tot was the genesis of the "state's right" interpretation and the famous holding was actually a legal nullity when it was written and has, since Heller, finally been rendered functionally inoperative as precedent.

"It is abundantly clear that [the 2nd Amendment], unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power. "

United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1942)

(link is a 52kb pdf)

Originally Posted by MAC

Read the Heller decision. It was affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Yes, affirmed as an individual right by all nine Justices.