NRA is against State's rights?

[True Grit Farms]

The NRA has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state of Florida's right to raise the age of buying a firearm from
18 to 21. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard Florida's governor had a perfect A+ rating from the NRA before signing the bill.

Appears the NRA is behaving like a bunch of Democrats trying to legislate from the bench and infringe on State Rights.
Any state rights advocates care to comment or does the NRA own your soul?

Agree with you except for the assumption that either party has a more legit claim than the other to being "pro states' rights." The issues they choose just differ.

That's what makes this country so great, but one side sure seems to do the most whinning.

 

[snoopdog]

I haven't read the bill and probably won't , but I can't imagine raising the purchasing age to 21 being in any way unconstitutional or violating the 2nd. I think that is reasonable . I've said it before and I'll say it again , The refusal of the NRA to accept or even support reasonable regulation will end up hurting gun owners in the long run.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I haven't read the bill and probably won't , but I can't imagine raising the purchasing age to 21 being in any way unconstitutional or violating the 2nd. I think that is reasonable . I've said it before and I'll say it again , The refusal of the NRA to accept or even support reasonable regulation will end up hurting gun owners in the long run.

The 14th amendment is the trump card
overriding the 10th protecting the 2nd as states can not carve out a demographic group under the equal protection clause. It is actually the states obligation to defend the group they are trying to disarm.
This goes back to reconstruction.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The equal protection within its jurisdiction is federal laws and rights.
Fla. had to ratify this amendment as the other southern states to rejoin the union. This was the major blow of the 10th.

 

[HDRider]

They had to do something. They don't care if it stand the test of the courts. This was for show. Dramatics.

 

[hurleyjd]

Gun purchasing legally controlled will not work. Too many guns out in the world now that trades with no record whatsoever.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Gun purchasing legally controlled will not work. Too many guns out in the world now that trades with no record whatsoever.

Right, and law abiding citizens aren't the one's breaking the law, so while limit them?

 

[sstterry]

There are no circumstances where the state can trump the us constitution, can't raise an army......

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

 

[Bright Raven]

There are no circumstances where the state can trump the us constitution, can't raise an army......

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

You may be correct. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that it pertains to "Individual" rights to private ownership of firearms. Here is the information on the 5 to 4 2008 ruling. You can take consolation in the fact that 4 Justices agreed with you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric ... _v._Heller

 

[snoopdog]

I haven't read the bill and probably won't , but I can't imagine raising the purchasing age to 21 being in any way unconstitutional or violating the 2nd. I think that is reasonable . I've said it before and I'll say it again , The refusal of the NRA to accept or even support reasonable regulation will end up hurting gun owners in the long run.

The 14th amendment is the trump card
overriding the 10th protecting the 2nd as states can not carve out a demographic group under the equal protection clause. It is actually the states obligation to defend the group they are trying to disarm.
This goes back to reconstruction.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The equal protection within its jurisdiction is federal laws and rights.
Fla. had to ratify this amendment as the other southern states to rejoin the union. This was the major blow of the 10th.

Gotcha CB, as long as federal law is 18 for purchase , thanks .

 

[sstterry]

There are no circumstances where the state can trump the us constitution, can't raise an army......

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

You may be correct. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that it pertains to "Individual" rights to private ownership of firearms. Here is the information on the 5 to 4 2008 ruling. You can take consolation in the fact that 4 Justices agreed with you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric ... _v._Heller

I am well aware of Heller. I didn't say it wasn't the law now, I just said it wasn't contemplated at the time. But nothing in Heller says that there can't be reasonable restrictions and regulations placed on firearms. For instance, why does anyone need a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds? If I haven't hit the deer on the first shot, I probably won't at all.

 

[Bright Raven]

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

You may be correct. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that it pertains to "Individual" rights to private ownership of firearms. Here is the information on the 5 to 4 2008 ruling. You can take consolation in the fact that 4 Justices agreed with you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric ... _v._Heller

I am well aware of Heller. I didn't say it wasn't the law now, I just said it wasn't contemplated at the time. But nothing in Heller says that there can't be reasonable restrictions and regulations placed on firearms. For instance, why does anyone need a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds? If I haven't hit the deer on the first shot, I probably won't at all.

I actually agree with you. I have always doubted that the 2nd Amendment was about individuals. Nevertheless, the Heller decision stands.

I also agree on clip capacity but I would go for 8. After all, most revolvers have 6 cylinders.

 

[HDRider]

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

You may be correct. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that it pertains to "Individual" rights to private ownership of firearms. Here is the information on the 5 to 4 2008 ruling. You can take consolation in the fact that 4 Justices agreed with you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric ... _v._Heller

I am well aware of Heller. I didn't say it wasn't the law now, I just said it wasn't contemplated at the time. But nothing in Heller says that there can't be reasonable restrictions and regulations placed on firearms. For instance, why does anyone need a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds? If I haven't hit the deer on the first shot, I probably won't at all.

You think the 2nd is about hunting?

I like this part too...

 

[dieselbeef]

at least post the whole amendment if yer gonna post it huh.....

 

[True Grit Farms]

This is the Second Amendment:

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.

Most people believe it is about the individual, but it is about the States being allowed to maintain a Militia. IE the Revolutionary War when England wanted to ban the colonies from having Militias. The personal ownership and regulation of firearms were never contemplated at the time.

You may be correct. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that it pertains to "Individual" rights to private ownership of firearms. Here is the information on the 5 to 4 2008 ruling. You can take consolation in the fact that 4 Justices agreed with you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric ... _v._Heller

I am well aware of Heller. I didn't say it wasn't the law now, I just said it wasn't contemplated at the time. But nothing in Heller says that there can't be reasonable restrictions and regulations placed on firearms. For instance, why does anyone need a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds? If I haven't hit the deer on the first shot, I probably won't at all.

I assume you've never hunted off a buggy or airboat. Why not just make us all like Barney?

 

[dieselbeef]

10 rd mags mean I gotta carry more of em..or more guns at once..not gonna fix schidt

 

[Bright Raven]

I assume you've never hunted off a buggy or airboat.

How does that work? You chase them I assume. Firing at them until one goes down?

Resident hunters in Wyoming refer to those hunters that fire at running pronghorn antelope as "flock shooters". Not very well respected out there.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I assume you've never hunted off a buggy or airboat.

How does that work? You chase them I assume. Firing at them until one goes down?

Resident hunters in Wyoming refer to those hunters that fire at running pronghorn antelope as "flock shooters". Not very well respected out there.

Or anywhere.

 

[sstterry]

This part of the syllabus from Heller:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Under Heller you could theroetically ban anything except flint locks and black powder weapons. My only point is that the 2nd Amendment is not without limitation and there is nothing wrong with "reasonable restrictions" for the public safety. All the talk about banning "Assault Rifles" is a fallacy. They are no different than a semi-automatic .22 with just some fancy coverings. However, high capacity magazines and bump-stocks are another matter altogether. Machine Guns are banned, hand grenades are banned. Some restrictions are already in place. It is simply a matter of degree and it is not a black and white issue.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I assume you've never hunted off a buggy or airboat.

How does that work? You chase them I assume. Firing at them until one goes down?

Resident hunters in Wyoming refer to those hunters that fire at running pronghorn antelope as "flock shooters". Not very well respected out there.

They called us herd shooters in Montana.

 

[Bright Raven]

I assume you've never hunted off a buggy or airboat.

How does that work? You chase them I assume. Firing at them until one goes down?

Resident hunters in Wyoming refer to those hunters that fire at running pronghorn antelope as "flock shooters". Not very well respected out there.

They called us herd shooters in Montana.

I have been engaged in hunting for a long time and have hunted in many states, Canada, and Africa. Not much I have not seen. I have seen deer running around dragging their guts, I have seen pronghorn with their legs shot off and saw an elk with its lower jaw shot off. It happens. IMO anyone who shoots at moving game from a moving vehicle except under extraordinary circumstances should get one behind the ear.