Posted on 11/22/2009 10:06:10 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans' Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.
In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Holy cow! This is huge.
Has this got legs?
If you can't trust him with a child, he belongs 6 feet under.
In both cases, the left have sought to be lenient and let both back out into society with restrictions.
All our leniency has really done is set criminals free to prey on the innocent. In the end, it is far worse than just dealing with the problem.
The left does this because 1) they think they can control the criminals and 2) it gives them an excuse for greater controls on all of us.
ping
All I said is that it IS possible in some countries . Mostly third world, but they can do it . We should be able to do it because of the quote “ shall not be infringed “ I whole heartedly agree with your statement !
“I am of the opinion (just as valuable/damnable as yours) is that US citizens should be encouraged maybe even required to own, possess and use any small arm to include rifles, pistols, select fire ARs (of any type) and light/medium machine guns (aka M240/M60) etc.”
I REQUIRED my sons ( 26 and 30 ) buy firearms last year. I was not going to relent on that statement and they listened to dad .
I want a tank. I believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees me the right to own a tank. Governments may regulate how and where I drive or park my tank*, and penalize me severely if I aim and/or fire it in an unsafe or threatening manner; beyond that, I believe the only limitation on my ability to own a tank should be the fact that I just can’t afford it on my current budget.
This is not a joke.
*As with a bulldozer which I could legally own, but would be impractical in an urban setting because governments regulate how and where I could drive or park it.
Declan is an interesting guy. He used to hang out on the Cypherpunks mailing list about 10 years or so ago when I was actuve on it.
Owning firearms as you stated (FA ARs) in most countries is illegal, the images you see in the mdeia are not from “civilized” nations, or they are as I stated, issued weapons held by memeber of a military/LEO org.
Pick up an AK in Iraq, Columbia, Mexico, etc and get caught=prison or death.
Pick up two or three in Somalia and you’re just like the rest of the population, but do not expect any civil authority or control... Big diff.
You can buy pretty much anything you want here in the US, for the most part, the issue is:
1. Are you willing to violate the law (even though it may be “unconstitutional”) and risk your livihood just to “illegally” own a machine gun or RPG?
2. What would you do with “it” once you illicitly obtained “it”?
You should just do the paper work, pay the transfer tax and be on your way if yu think a MG is so important. They ain’t.
I have no issue with your efforts to insure your sons are armed-I applaud it actually. My own children are well armed as well.
Molon Labe
I arm myself in order to prevent someone else likewise armed from abridging my rights.
The founders did not specify what “arms” were, but the common usage of the term in the era of the consitituions writing is accepted to mean “personal arms” by most scholars and experts on this topic. Offensive/defensive use is immaterial.
Complex issues- we do have laws to govern, we have some laws that usurp no doubt, but I for one would err on the side of reasonable meanings, reasonably applied. I suppose the term “arms” include an ICBM? Really. Think about it. Are there limits or are there not? The issue is to find the right meaning and application.
The real issue is the extent and reach of government and its ability to intrude....
Molon Labe
I would like the option to switch from semi to full auto on a weapon just to be able to do it . Gonna cost a lot of $$$$$$$ to fire off those rounds. Many semi autos are really fast today. That’s why it should be no big deal if you want full auto without having to pay TAXES out the behind to own one.
Even fixed the floating firing pin on my Russian SKS so it WOULDN’T go auto on me if it stuck. Don’t want to be illegal.
I agree.
Well, I see more and more people starting to understand the second.
What you wrote is my understanding also.
Thanks for this post.
Well, I see more and more people starting to understand the second.
What you wrote is my understanding also.
Thanks for this post.
YESSSSSSS! [fistpump] Lautenberg to the shitcan where he (and it) belong.
And especially if his conviction (sometimes even a plea) occurred before 1996, it's certainly not fair to impose additional disabilities upon him ex post facto.
Yeah, I served in Armoured units as well as Inf, Engr and SF, so I know what you allude to. However, I still stand on the founders original meaning and intent; I am of the opinion that historical understadning of the term “arms” is critically important in application of the 2A.
Your tank, for instance, is not able to be used to any effect by one person (cannot drive or load/fire w/o changing positions etc), hence is a crew-served weapon system, somnething to which the application of the militia act of 1792 applies- milita, organized and unorganized are individuals, well regulated in use of (small) arms, tactics and operations; with units training on crew-served systems of public ownership. Let’s not try to invent something which was not meant by the writers. To do so would be as bad as the folks we are at odds with-they are attempting to do the same thing, just from a differnt ideology (everything is public, vice private).
I agree that every municipality, county, state etc should have an organized (not USARNG) element, plus unorganized rolls of all able-bodied (and able minded) volunteers) to guard the liberties of its citizens. Those who refuse service and ownership fo acceptable arms should be fined until they either participate or depart.
Many states still have militias that are not USARNG elements (which are really just part-time US Army units).
The major ordnance systems should be stored and accessible by those “UNITS”, not individuals, just as they were for decades, centuries prior to the Dick act of 1913 (IIRC the date) which created the USARNG from state organized militias.
Musters and drills should be routine for all able men (and women?)of like conscience. If we returned to this mode, we could likley do away with most if not all LE organizations, as the populace would be the true “posse commitatus” (power of the land) in lieu of government employees and the obvious alliances to the appointed offcials that pay them from the public coffers (think less taxes at every level as well). Paradigm shift of note. Then, freedom would be restored to a greater extent than possible under this current situation.
Revolutionary? Not really, this method was employed for centuries in Britain, and the colonies/states until the turn of the 20th century for the most part.
Sorry for the rambling and off-topic direction (and probable spelling errors, I hate spell check and my mind types faster than my fingers).
Molon Labe
...but I still want one...
If you want to give someone a lifetime sentence make it specific to the crime. Breaking into a bar or getting into a drunken fight at age 19 — both of which can be felonies — shouldn’t be a lifetime sentence.
Wonder why the US military switched from cyclic full auto to burst? Not soley for logistics, but mainly for controllability and increased hit probability.
Rarely is FA an advantage with an AR. Too light a caliber in 556 for sustained effect, too heavy in a shoulder arms in 762 for controlled fire.
Suppressive fire (semi-ramdom fire in the direction of a threat) is about as effective as tossing a footbal down field randomly in the super bowl.
Sustained fire in SA is the key to successful engagements, aimed, well applied fire wins/hits.
Want supressive ability in short range situations? A 12 ga with 12-15 pellets of 00 buck from a semi/pump combat shotgun delivers more than a magazine fed AR in FA. (9 rounds times 12=108 30 cal pellets in about 2 seconds compared to 30 22 cal bullets in 2 second (at 900 rpm) yeah, range is lacking, but we are talking close quaters anyway-spraying an AR at 200 m is quite rediculous.
Don’t believe all the FA hype in the gun rags.
Molon LAbe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.