Gun Center

[nogods]

The constitution is clear in saying that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. As soon as a law is passed that limits what gun I may own or how much ammunition and where I cannot but it, that law clearly infringes on my right under the constitution and should be repealed. We will see how these laws that infringe with my rights hold up under court challenge soon.

You have it backwards. First you have to define the right. Then you apply the "shall not be infringed" restriction. Let's take a simple example. the right to bear arms under the second does not include the right to have two wives, so a law that prohibits having two wives does not infringe on the right to bear arms. Got it?

The SCOTUS has stated that the rights guaranteed under the 2A do not include the right possess any weapon and any place. So you first have to determine if the particular weapon or particular place you wish to take it to is protected by the 2A. If not, then a law prohibiting such a weapon or prohibiting a weapon in such a place does not infringe any rights under the 2A.

And even if a particular weapon or particular place is within the rights of under the 2A, we then have to determine if such rights are unconstitutionally "infringed" by any restrictions. There is no universal meaning to the term "infringed" as used by the founders. They used the term "all men" in the DOI but obviously didn't mean "all men."

[WNYresident]

You have it backwards. First you have to define the right. Then you apply the "shall not be infringed" restriction. Let's take a simple example. the right to bear arms under the second does not include the right to have two wives, so a law that prohibits having two wives does not infringe on the right to bear arms. Got it?

The SCOTUS has stated that the rights guaranteed under the 2A do not include the right possess any weapon and any place. So you first have to determine if the particular weapon or particular place you wish to take it to is protected by the 2A. If not, then a law prohibiting such a weapon or prohibiting a weapon in such a place does not infringe any rights under the 2A.

And even if a particular weapon or particular place is within the rights of under the 2A, we then have to determine if such rights are unconstitutionally "infringed" by any restrictions. There is no universal meaning to the term "infringed" as used by the founders. They used the term "all men" in the DOI but obviously didn't mean "all men."

With your logic we can prune down the 2A to only allowing rocks and clubs.

Just look at Syria and tell your "elected" representatives no.

Remember when elections roll around 2013 which party/group of people are behind this locally right down to your town board/school board. www.ecdems.com currently lead by Jeremy Zellner. This group of people work extensively to get President Obama and Governor Cuomo elected.

Here is Governor Cuomo for you. The very same man that the www.ecdems.com supported with fund raisers and get out the vote efforts. Isn't that true nogods? Yes or no? I'm pretty sure when he rolls through for a fund raiser quite a few from the www.ecdems.com attend to kiss ass.

Cuomo Planning to Push Abortion on Demand

It wasn’t enough for radical New York leftist Governor Andrew Cuomo to champion broad new restrictions on guns; now he has set his sights on allowing late-term abortion on demand.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...tion-On-Demand

When elections roll around 2013 we need to let all the older people in our town know what the people on our town board support and stand for.

I went to this page to get more information but no one is listed.

http://ecdems.com/elected-officials/

Can anyone ask Jeremy if they can update this page accordingly?

http://ecdems.com/why-we-fight/

I want to see strict gun control listed, late term abortions, our community funds going to people who are in our country illegally and that they stand for large government and billions of debt. Nogods? would you mind Jeremy he needs to update that page?

Elections 2013 are coming up and I would like our community to know what the local democrats stand for and support.

[mikenold]

You have it backwards. First you have to define the right. Then you apply the "shall not be infringed" restriction. Let's take a simple example. the right to bear arms under the second does not include the right to have two wives, so a law that prohibits having two wives does not infringe on the right to bear arms. Got it?

The SCOTUS has stated that the rights guaranteed under the 2A do not include the right possess any weapon and any place. So you first have to determine if the particular weapon or particular place you wish to take it to is protected by the 2A. If not, then a law prohibiting such a weapon or prohibiting a weapon in such a place does not infringe any rights under the 2A.

And even if a particular weapon or particular place is within the rights of under the 2A, we then have to determine if such rights are unconstitutionally "infringed" by any restrictions. There is no universal meaning to the term "infringed" as used by the founders. They used the term "all men" in the DOI but obviously didn't mean "all men."

Both the SCOTUS and you are mistaken! The courts will prove me right in the end.

[cheekman]

Was the state trooper a member, was he checking permits, or just snooping?
Just wondering what his assignment was? Did management have any explanstion for his presence?...this seems very interesting.

joe not really sure they do like to hang out in there at times usually in marked units are parked out front and just hang out. not sure on this guy unmarked suv not that matters but just strange na he wasnt checking nothing might of known someone shooting.. i was going to ask him for ID... but i do know lots of people shooting wed morning...

[Dan Roman]

joe not really sure they do like to hang out in there at times usually in marked units are parked out front and just hang out. not sure on this guy unmarked suv not that matters but just strange na he wasnt checking nothing might of known someone shooting.. i was going to ask him for ID... but i do know lots of people shooting wed morning...

I was there last week Wednesday, besides CBP using their half of the place, the regular range was rented out to some police dept from 8-2pm. The girl at the counter didn't say who had it, but they paid for it and never showed so she let us use the range but said if they showed we would have to vacate. Not sure where troopers do their shooting but maybe they are doing some of it there?

[BorderBob]

Both the SCOTUS and you are mistaken! The courts will prove me right in the end.

Which courts if the USSC is mistaken?




b.b.

[mikenold]

Which courts if the USSC is mistaken?

b.b.

Is that a trick question? The USSC has not ruled on this yet. Besides, even if the courts do not rule properly, the people are the final authority.

[nogods]

Is that a trick question? The USSC has not ruled on this yet. Besides, even if the courts do not rule properly, the people are the final authority.

Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that rights under the second amendment do not include the right of every person to own every weapon in every place. The court recognized that restrictions on a person's status (for example felons) or type of weapon (for example "machine gun") or location (for example "sensitive places") were all outside the rights encompassed by the 2A.

You need to read Heller and McDonald.

[Chant]

Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that rights under the second amendment do not include the right of every person to own every weapon in every place. The court recognized that restrictions on a person's status (for example felons) or type of weapon (for example "machine gun") or location (for example "sensitive places") were all outside the rights encompassed by the 2A.

You need to read Heller and McDonald.

Please point out, where in the 2nd Amendment any restrictions are mentioned? Failing that, please point out where any of the framers of the Bill of Rights have said there should be restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?

I find it odd that everyone falls back on quoting SCOTUS rulings concerning the 2nd Amendment, when SCOTUS is a branch of the government. The same government that the 2nd Amendment is meant to be the final protection from.
"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty definate statement, and yet they seemed to have done so anyway. Where is it wise to give ANY branch of the government control, or say in, a right that is meant to keep said government from becoming a tyranny and opressing it's people? You just as well should give a person with a severe gambling problem the combination to the cash vault and tell them you'll be going out of town on vacation for a week.

[WNYresident]

Chant
The same government that the 2nd Amendment is meant to be the final protection from.
"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty definate statement, and yet they seemed to have done so anyway. Where is it wise to give ANY branch of the government control, or say in, a right that is meant to keep said government from becoming a tyranny and opressing it's people?

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/infringe.htm

NFRINGE
Pronunciation (US):

Dictionary entry overview: What does infringe mean?

• INFRINGE (verb)
The verb INFRINGE has 2 senses:

1. go against, as of rules and laws
2. advance beyond the usual limit

Familiarity information: INFRINGE used as a verb is rare.

Dictionary entry details

• INFRINGE (verb)

Sense 1 infringe
Meaning:

Go against, as of rules and laws

Classified under:

Verbs of political and social activities and events

Synonyms:

contravene; infringe; run afoul; conflict

Context examples:

He ran afoul of the law / This behavior conflicts with our rules

Hypernyms (to "infringe" is one way to...):

breach; break; go against; infract; offend; transgress; violate (act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises)

[BorderBob]

Please point out, where in the 2nd Amendment any restrictions are mentioned? Failing that, please point out where any of the framers of the Bill of Rights have said there should be restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?

High school civics class. The President cannot make law, he needs the Congress to pass them. Congress cannot make law, they need the President to sign it. If the Congress makes a law and the President signs it, the Courts get to decide if it is Constitutional. If the courts decide a law is Unconstitutional, the Congress can pass a Constitutional amendment and change the Constitution

That whole Checks and Balances thing.



b.b..

[WNYresident]

That whole Checks and Balances thing.



b.b..

That is the point. Keep the "Government" in check not the other way around.

[Chant]

High school civics class. The President cannot make law, he needs the Congress to pass them. Congress cannot make law, they need the President to sign it. If the Congress makes a law and the President signs it, the Courts get to decide if it is Constitutional. If the courts decide a law is Unconstitutional, the Congress can pass a Constitutional amendment and change the Constitution

That whole Checks and Balances thing.



b.b..

And The People were meant to be the final stage of that system of Checks and Balances, people seem to forget that. Where is it advisable for the government to legislate that power away? No matter how you swing it, the government was not intended to have control over a final safety check on itself. That's like disconnecting the safety on your handgun because you never experienced an accidental discharge yourself. You know its happened before. You know it can happen again. But you do it anyway because you think it can never happen to you. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

[BorderBob]

That is the point. Keep the "Government" in check not the other way around.

You elect them, or in your case, are unable to get enough like minded people to vote with you. Think of the math in a Presidential race. Typically less than 55 of 100 eligible voters vote for President. Barely half of those decide the winner which means that maybe 27 out of 100 eligible voters decide who the President is.



b.b.

[Save Us]

I don't know why more people aren't happy and trusting of the government. After 10 thousand years, Yes we finally have it figured out, There is no reason to hoard guns, panic, or worry...
Everyone needs to just relax about the whole thing. The days of abusive government are long gone. It's all good now right Bob.....uh Bob?

Oh and in keeping with the thread, does anyone know why I am having such a hard time getting a lever action .357??? it's crazy, then again I can see idiot politicians trying ban a 100 year old weapon. Next thing on the endangered species list.....bolt actions!!!