This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

Bearing Arms ^ | 11-22-2016 | Bob Owens

[ctdonath2]

At the time of writing the 2nd, carrying concealed was considered presumptive evidence of ill intent. (Concealing took more effort than today; social norm now demands it.)

[Garth Tater]

And, if it's your house I'd either respect your wishes or not visit.

That is the proper answer.

If it's concealed how would you know?

My dog is a rabbit dog. Nothing she loves more than snuffing up rabbits and she gets REAL excited around guns. Loves the smell of them - gets that whole body shiver going on when she's around them. Quite a nose on her. Sure thing buddy, bring a gun into my home after I've told you not to.

You need to take your anti-gun rhetoric somewhere else. I hear DU is open again!

Maybe you should be the one heading over to DU, your ignorance is clearly on display here. NO ONE has the right to do ANYTHING on my property that I forbid. The right to bear arms applies to you on your property and on public property. This is clearly set out in English common law which was well known and followed in the American colonies at the time the Second Amendment was written. My home is my castle and you obey me (the King) or you suffer the consequences.

Have a good time at DU dummy.

[PLMerite]

“At the time of writing the 2nd, carrying concealed was considered presumptive evidence of ill intent.”

I would think back then you would almost have to conceal your weapon to keep the powder dry.

[Manly Warrior]

No, I don’t think that one’s right to property trumps another’s right to life. The social compact declares that we enjoy or rights w/o impeding or restricting those of another. If we all carried arms responsibly, then we all could enjoy property responsibly too.

The old adage of “your right to throw a punch ends at the point of my nose” applies.

It is a fine line between civilly enjoying our rights w/o treading upon those of our neighbor.

While I agree that I would find it threatening to see another walking up to my door with arms in hand, that is not what we are talking about. What if one showed up peaceably with a holstered or a slung or an otherwise carried non-threateningly arm?

We probably should not state that anyone presenting themselves armed at our door would be automatically considered a threat. You may never know how many legally and non-threateningly armed folks crossed your threshold.

Besides, what do you do? Do you pat down visitors? I bet you have none after the first instance...

I take it a different way- I stay armed and situationally aware-I welcome all who come peaceably, but have the means and ability to defend myself from any one who violates that peaceable condition. That is the best application of both my rights and another’s, at home, on the street etc.

Best

[Manly Warrior]

Wow, I bet that doggie alert would stand up in your defense trial. Do I need a sarcasm tag?

[Manly Warrior]

Oh, finally, Other than an incidental stranger, not many unknown/uninvited folks come to my door- I encourage everyone to enjoy and practice their rights- to that end, I prefer all my house guests to be armed, the more the merrier and safer in the long run. I may never know when I’ll need someone covering my six....

[Garth Tater]

We probably should not state that anyone presenting themselves armed at our door would be automatically considered a threat.

I stated, showing up at my door with a pistol in hand. Quite a difference there. Another difference is in crossing my threshold after being informed that I am not allowing weapons to be carried by you into my home. Your right to life DOES NOT trump my right to control my property. I'll state again that the correct response when learning of my demand to enter weaponless or do not enter is to not enter. Your right to life does not allow you to disobey me in matters concerning the control of my property.

The old adage of “your right to throw a punch ends at the point of my nose” applies.

In a public setting you are correct, but it is totally inapplicable in the case of an intruder in my home which you certainly would be if you entered with a weapon after being informed that I was not allowing you to enter with a weapon. The fact that you have deceitfully entered my home with a concealed weapon does not change the fact that you are now an intruder in my home and whether you live or die is my decision.

What if one showed up peaceably with a holstered or a slung or an otherwise carried non-threateningly arm?

It would be my right to choose whether to grant him entrance with his weaponry or not. Totally MY choice and if enters against my wishes then he is an illegal intruder and suffers the consequences.

Besides, what do you do? Do you pat down visitors?

I look at who is requesting entry and make my choice as to whether they can come in. I have asked in the past if a man was armed with the intention of turning him away if he was. Friends and neighbors generally are free to enter with their weapons as I know and trust them.

I take it a different way- I stay armed and situationally aware-I welcome all who come peaceably

Your choice is your choice. My choice is my choice and on our own properties we are lords and masters. It is a wonderful thing to live in a free country where all of our natural born rights are respected. Including the right to control your property and actions that take place on it.

[Garth Tater]

Wow, I bet that doggie alert would stand up in your defense trial. Do I need a sarcasm tag?

If my doggie alerts me to a gun I am going to request that you show me that you are unarmed. If you refuse I am going to demand that you leave my property immediately. If you refuse I am going to draw my gun and escort you off of my property. If you resist I am going to kill you. I think each of those actions would stand up in court.

[walkingdead]

I have read both your replies with great interest.

In my opinion our rights are given by God and cannot be taken by anyone, nor do they end by crossing any line.

Does a property owner have the right to tell you to leave his property? Yes. Does a property owner have a right to defend his castle? Absolutely. If you are on that persons property and will not leave I believe you could be considered a threat.

But to think that our God given rights can be taken away by anyone is simply not true...... Our God given rights do not end at anyones door step, but actions do have consequences.

[Garth Tater]

to that end, I prefer all my house guests to be armed

My son in his younger, wilder days showed up at the house with six strangers - drunk and acting stupid. I asked if anyone was armed. They acted "stupider" and became aggressive. I pulled my gun and escorted them off the property. Not every one is welcome in my home and especially not in an armed state.

I may never know when I’ll need someone covering my six....

That's my wife's job and I've seen her do it more than once. We live in an area were law enforcement will NOT be there in time to handle a problem. We handle them just fine all by ourselves.

[Garth Tater]

But to think that our God given rights can be taken away by anyone is simply not true......

I would not be taking away your God given right. The proper response to being informed that you are not to enter my home in an armed state is to NOT ENTER MY HOME. All of your God given rights remain in effect unless you think you have the right to enter my home against my wishes.

Our God given rights do not end at anyones door step,

No, but you have no right to enter a man's home against his wishes and if you enter a man's home in an armed state against his wishes you are an intruder in his home, your right to life is gone and he has the right to deal with you as a danger to his and his loved ones lives. Nothing, including your God given right to life or the right to bear arm gives you the right to enter my home against my wishes.

[KrisKrinkle]

First you need 5 justices that know what “shall not be infringed” means.

First you need people that know what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means.

[Secret Agent Man]

IF fedogv can’t do it, the states cannot either. Fedgov derives power from the state. The states can’t have laws that trample over the limits of the federal constitution.

[KrisKrinkle]

“NO ONE has the right to do ANYTHING on my property that I forbid.”

All else being equal:

If I am on your property and decide to leave I have and will exercise the liberty right to do so whether you forbid it or not.

If I am on your property and someone demands I have sex with them I have and will exercise at will my free speech right to say “No” whether you forbid it or not.

If I am on your property I have and will exercise my right to life whether you forbid it or not, unless maybe you forbid it through homicide, and even then I might prevail.

[walkingdead]

“I would not be taking away your God given right”

You CANNOT take away my God given rights, not in any way shape or form. What you would have done (in this scenario) is restricted my access to your property which is your right due to being the owner. And I have absolutely no problem with that.

[Garth Tater]

If I am on your property and decide to leave I have and will exercise the liberty right to do so whether you forbid it or not.

Forbidding you to leave would be unlawful detention and of course you would have the right to leave. How anal do you wish to be in this discussion?

If I am on your property and someone demands I have sex with them I have and will exercise at will my free speech right to say “No” whether you forbid it or not.

Again, you always have the right to immediately leave but when you are on my property you will do as I say or you will leave or I will force you to leave and I am willing to use deadly force to make you leave. Seriously, do you think someone demanding sex from you and me forbidding you to say no is really germane to this conversation. If something you don't wish to a part of is happening while you are a guest on my property you can always leave.

If I am on your property I have and will exercise my right to life whether you forbid it or not, unless maybe you forbid it through homicide, and even then I might prevail.

If you are on my property and refuse my demand that you leave I will use force to escort you off. If you resist you will die. Otherwise, if you don't wish to obey my rules on my property leave. If my rules included dying without resisting then you should have been gone a long time ago.

Seriously, I expect better from a Freeper. Try to step it up if you are going to respond again please.

[Garth Tater]

What you would have done (in this scenario) is restricted my access to your property which is your right due to being the owner. And I have absolutely no problem with that.

I think you just agreed with me. Don't know what your statement about not being able to take away your God given rights has to do with it as you just stated you have no right to illegally be on my property and God given rights, such as the right to freedom and even the right to life can be taken away from criminals. Do we not have the right to execute murderers? I don't remember the Bible saying anything about it being a violation of a criminal's God given rights to put him in jail. Yours is a picky point, more semantics than anything really having to do with this discussion.

[walkingdead]

Great response, especially coming after you cherry picked two sentences out of my original post to reply to.

[Garth Tater]

Thank you, it really wasn’t easy considering the lack of substance to your post.

[Ken H]

The US v Stewart case pretty much closed that off, thanks to the Raich case.

Soon after the decision in Raich, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. On remand, the Ninth Circuit held that Congress had the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns, just as it had the power to criminalize homegrown marijuana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich