U.S. Justice Department Submits Brief in Support of Second Amendment

Justice Law Legal Lawsuit Judges Jury Court
U.S. Justice Department Submits Brief in Support of Second Amendment

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- The United States Department of Justice has submitted an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief on the New York Rifle and Pistol Club case. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the case. It will likely be hearing oral arguments on the case in October of 2019.

The brief, submitted by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, concludes the Supreme Court should reverse the appeals court ruling and hold the New York City law to be unconstitutional.

The brief argues the New York law violates both the right to bear arms outside the home and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The brief does not address the right to carry firearms outside the home for purposes of defense of self, others, and the community, which is an obvious part of bearing arms. The argument submitted is well stated in the summary of the brief.

Here is the summary of the amicus curiae brief submitted by the United States Justice Department. From supremecourt.gov:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to keep a fire-arm in his home for lawful purposes such as self-defense.In this case, the Court should confirm that the Second Amendment also protects the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to take his firearm outside his home, and to transport it to other places—such as a second home or a firing range—where he may lawfully possess that firearm. The Second Amendment guarantees both the right to “keep” and the right to “bear” firearms. Read naturally, the right to “bear” firearms includes the right to transport firearms outside the home;other-wise, the right to “bear” would add nothing to the right to “keep.” In addition, the right to “keep” arms, on its own, implies the right to transport firearms between the home and at least some places outside the home—for instance,the place of purchase, the repair shop, and the firing range.

Like other rights, the right to transport firearms is not absolute. To determine whether a law violates this right, a court should look first to the text of the Second Amendment, the history of the right to keep and bear arms before ratification, and the tradition of gun regulation after ratification. In Heller, the Court held that the District of Columbia’s near-complete ban on the possession of handguns in the home violated the Second Amendment because the District had “totally ban[ned]” an activity protected by the Second Amendment’s text, because “[f]ew laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban,” and because “some of those few have been struck down.” 554 U.S. at 628-629. Each of those observations is also true of the transport ban here. The transport ban constitutes an almost-total prohibition on the transportation of arms outside the home; it bans the carrying of firearms to virtually any destination, including a second home or a firing range outside the City, even when those firearms are locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. Few laws in the history of our Nation, or even in contemporary times, have come close to such a sweeping prohibition on the transportation of arms. And on some of the rare occasions in the 19th and 20th centuries when state and local governments have adopted such prohibitions, state courts have struck them down. That is enough to establish that the transport ban is unconstitutional.

II. Petitioners also contend that the ban on transporting handguns to firing ranges outside the City violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the right to interstate travel. Because the ban violates the Second Amendment, the Court need not reach these additional constitutional arguments.

In any event, the ban violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Under that doctrine, a state or local government ordinarily may not discriminate against inter-state commerce in favor of local commerce.On its face, the transport ban discriminates against interstate commerce: It allows a license-holder to take his firearm to a local firing range, but precludes him from taking his firearm to a firing range outside the City. 

Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, however, the transport ban does not violate the unenumerated right to interstate travel. This Court has explained that a law violates this right only if it directly impairs interstate travel by imposing an obstacle to free movement across state borders. The transport ban does not directly impair interstate travel. The ban does not regulate travel as such; rather, it forbids a person to remove his firearm from his home, irrespective of whether he means to travel to another State or to do something else.

The brief is well argued as far as it goes. It is hard to find any substantive argument that “bearing arms” is confined to the home.

Second Amendment supporters hope for much more: that the court will confirm that bearing arms obviously includes bearing arms outside the home for the purpose of defense of self, others, and the community.

Thank You Trump Administration

The mere fact the U.S. Department of Justice submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Second Amendment is positive. Too many times, we have seen a Justice Department that appeared outright hostile to the exercise of Second Amendment rights.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

96
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
20 Comment threads
76 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
54 Comment authors
TheHolyCrowNateGreg KCraigThe Revelator Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Craig
Guest
Craig

All ‘gun control laws’ are un-Constitutional. Article 6, U.S. Constitution “The Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land”. Therefore, no legislative law, Executive Order or local decree may limit, deny, change or modify the Constitution. Article 6 continues “All laws must conform to and be made pursuant to the Constitution”. Therefore, any legislative law, Executive Order or local decree not in 100% harmony with the U.S. Constitution, is null & void. Americans could own any firearm of any type they wanted until the 1934 NFA. The U.S. Congress fearing the WW1 veterans, enacted the NFA. While reviewing the NFA,… Read more »

Nate
Guest
Nate

+1 this.

Donald L. Cline
Guest
Donald L. Cline

From the article: “Like other rights, the right to transport firearms is not absolute.” Yeah, it is. We have an unassailable right to keep AND BEAR firearms, and we have an unassailable right to travel; ergo, we have an unassailable natural right to transport firearms. “Unassailable.” Yes, unassailable. The federal government has no delegated authority whatever to observe, monitor, control, infringe, or interfere in any way with the right to keep and bear arms. State governments are PROHIBITED the authority to observe, monitor, control, infringe, or interfere in any way with the right to keep and bear arms. State governments… Read more »

Nate
Guest
Nate

+1 this.

Jeremiah
Guest
Jeremiah

Rightfully so, most of us understand that our God given right, thankfully acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, is only one of our unalienable Rights. We decided long ago that it was proper for a responsible civil society to instruct it’s young citizens on how to become a responsible citizen themselves. How many of you took a Civics class in High School? Since education is a requirement of our civil society, why don’t we require, as part of our civics education, a proper and safe exercise of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I’m talking about before they reach… Read more »

A. Blackwater
Guest
A. Blackwater

They need to get rid to of all guns! Period. The reason we make laws is to protect people even from themselves. People used to be able to take any drug they wanted, until people started dying. People used to be able to drive as fast as you want, then people died. We had to change the rules to protect people. So we set laws hence the drug laws however draconician; hence the speed limit! Too many people have screwed up with guns and everyone loses out because of the weakest link in our chain. I am sorry that you… Read more »

Shaggy
Guest
Shaggy

This is a joke, right?

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Shaggy, Hmmm Backwater makes baseless, ignorant, outrageous statements on a site where he knows he will get responses. Either he derives pleasure from advertising Constitutional illiteracy or he gets paid for responses. He needs to attend jurisprudential kindergarten or get a real job.

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

Every once in a while he cuts and pastes that same post on this site, just to tick us off. He doesn’t even bother to fix the horrible grammar mistakes that are sprinkled through out his diatribe. Just ignore the poor fool, and don’t feed the troll.

Gene
Guest
Gene

You do realize that this is a Creator given right and it is not granted to us by a piece of paper? The constitution is a set of instructions to the Government of what rights we have that they cannot mess with. Its not telling us what rights they give us. In other words, its not a permission slip. While I feel bad at the loss of life due to the shootings, I also know that the Socialist agenda is what is causing them. 1. Welfare for all has eliminated any responsible parenting in this country which turns out weak… Read more »

m.
Guest
m.

guns exist so we can protect ourselves from dhimmi-rat commies like U

Nate
Guest
Nate

This the type a comment you get when you keep drinking your own piss. Stop your killing yourself.

Robert
Guest
Robert

Department of justice should but wont,declare 2a is a founding right no state,city,or jurisdiction can prevent.its our right not a privlidge like a car license

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Robert

That’s because the Constitution already declares that, and the Department of Justice doesn’t have the authority to declare one way or another just like Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial branches also lack authority to do so.

It’s called the Supremacy Clause.

freeillinois
Guest
freeillinois

A major gun control bill is moving in the Illinois General Assembly that will require ALL gun owners to be finger printed and background check in person at an Illinois State police post.at their expense. The bill as amended also “ENDS” all private sales and transfers.
Please contact your family and friends in Illinois and ask them to contact their Illinois State Senator and House member and tell them to oppose SB1966 as amended with House Amendment 1 (HA1)

Robert
Guest
Robert

Illinois, The reason they can pass these laws are: 1. You’re a slave (read the 14th amendment, the Trading w/the enemy Act of 1933. 2. You’re a U.S. citizen (note small “c”) 28 USC 3002(15). I’m sorry to inform you the U.S. is not a Country like France, Italy, or Iraq. 3. You’re operating as a public transmitting utility, exp. JOHN JOSEPH DOE vs John Joseph Doe, Private man operating under the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, The Constitution For The United States of America, and Public Law 97-280. Treaties are the Supreme law of the land. You have… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Robert Treaties are not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, hence the Supremacy Clause. The Constitutional standard for whether a law or treaty becomes part of the Law of the Land is whether or not it conflicts with any other part already in the Constitution. Any law (US code or otherwise) or treaty which does conflict is dead on arrival, it is a null and void law. Doesn’t matter how it was passed, who voted for it, or how many, it is DOA. period. No single part of the Constitution can… Read more »

Hal Jordan
Guest
Hal Jordan

This “sovereign citizen” stuff has been debunked countless times, and many of its practitioners are sitting behind bars right now. It’s a fraud and a scam and it will only get you into trouble.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Bingo.

Craig
Guest
Craig

Hal, you are incorrect. ALL Americans were Sovereign Citizens, once. Then, in an act of treason against the American People, Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Social Security Administration. The MOMENT you sign up for draft or Social Security, or pay Social Security taxes, you become property of the Corporation called The United States of America. THIS is what happens when lawyers, who owe their allegiance to the British Bar, make the laws. Americans can be FREE again, but they have to have balls and take that freedom back. So, don’t plan on being free anytime soon. Cowardice has a tight… Read more »

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

Unfortunately for them, they failed to adequately inform the citizens that they were in the process of royally screwing them, so the whole deal is and was NULL AND VOID. And they can take their bill and shove it where a duck can’t shove it’s bill. WE THE PEOPLE will refuse to comply with their wicked ways and their unjust and unconstitutional laws. And any of them who would dare to insist that we kneel down and kiss their rings may very well find themselves dancing at the end of a rope. And that goes double for any of their… Read more »

Nate
Guest
Nate

Freeillinois, I feel your pain. I’m from chicago or most people call it $hitcago. The same location where all the murders and major drug sales go down. This just dirty politicians in chicago. You can’t the amount of murders and drug deals go on for decades and not know who’s doing this. There getting paid to look the other way. A long time chief know how much ingredients to use without measuring because he’s been doing it for a long time. Likewise high up level politicians know where all this stuff is going down.

Oldmarine
Guest
Oldmarine

Natural law says that gun control is UN-natural. Any weapon is legal under natural law. ANTI-GUN people want o treat everyone as equals or more like Ants, or Bees. Human nature resists things UN-natural. Every human is different in many ways. Paramount is individual desires and most importantly our imaginations. We are not insects and everyone on this planet is under nature’s control.

Nate
Guest
Nate

So it would be “natural” for me to shoot you in the head if i decide I dont like you. Cool.

Shallnot BeInfringed
Guest
Shallnot BeInfringed

Nice strawman… that’s not what he said at all. Murder is illegal – and you’re a moron.

L.L. Smith
Guest
L.L. Smith

He likes several points to being as smart as a moron.

Christopher Ray
Guest
Christopher Ray

That is funny, I never knew that carrying a pistol was the exact same thing as shooting someone in the head because you don’t like them.

Nate, anything requiring a mental capacity above that of a 2 year old may just be over your head.

George Steele
Guest
George Steele

More like it is unnecessary to shoot you in the head because I feel like it, because you’re already brain dead.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Nate, Yes … yes, you have a theory, and now you only need to test it out. I can not encourage you more, but you need a controlled environment. I bet the local PD would be willing to help you. I look forward to reading about the outcome.

Rokflyer
Guest
Rokflyer

Does your mother know your hiding in the basement with her cell phone again. No allowance for you youngster.

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

Sounds like he is a candidate for a red flag . Wouldn’t it be kicka$$ if he swatted his mom on her own cell phone .

RotaryConnected
Guest
RotaryConnected

No Nate, that would be “Possessing a weapon for an illegal purpose”. See, there is another law that criminals will disregard. Only law abiding gun owners will obey that law, without even thinking about it. In fact, they don’t even need that law existing on the books to obey it. And conversely, even though that law is on the books, the criminals will not obey it.

Earl Langley
Guest
Earl Langley

Can we…”lawfully” be compelled to “waive a right to assert a right”? If Americans have a right to travel about the country…must we give up that right in order to possess firearms?

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Earl Langley

The honest and constitutional answer is “Hard no…”

Now, please wait for an idiot to show up for a demonstration of mental gymnastics while they try to explain why rights aren’t rights, and how a phantom majority support the idea that such rights should be suppressed.

Matthew D
Guest
Matthew D

“the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to keep a fire-arm in his home for lawful purposes such as self-defense.” How does one verify that a citizen is law-abiding and responsible without background and/or mental checkups? You need sensible gun laws and background checks. I have a friend who owns multiple guns, from hand guns to AR rifles. They have accidentally discharged their weapon not knowing where the bullet went. They also are prescribed antipsychotic medication for manic depression. I don’t view them as a responsible gun owner, but because we have organizations like the NRA… Read more »

Greg K
Guest
Greg K

Strange…I just reread the 2nd Amendment, and there are no “Qualifiers” that you mention in your comment. Nothing about keeping a gun in their homes, nothing about depression, nothing about responsibility, nothing about background checks, nothing, nothing, nothing.

I did notice that it’s a “Right of the PEOPLE,” and that it “Shall not be INFRINGED.”

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Mathew D, So because you don’t view your friends as responsible they, and millions of us, should be denied our Civil Rights? So your view is controlling? You, Matthew D, are an ethics less, illiterate, tyrant.
You are also a first rung propagandist. The money you get from my response you had better spend wisely because it is the last that you will get.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Wild Bill Mattew D was given access to an unregistered and incredibly dangerous keyboard. We all know what problems can arise when idiotic morons like Matthew are allowed to spread misinformation and unfettered BS. And, you can be sure he would whine and cry like a little skank if we made him go through a background check and approval process before he is ever allowed to post or vocalize one of his imbecilic comments, screaming through tears about how “But I have a 1st amendment right!!!!” PS~ Guarantee he is also too Butt Stupid to understand the significance of what… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, long time no hear from. Hope you are well. There were so many things wrong with his comunique, that I just had to limit myself to one. I tried to pick the one that was within my capacity to explain to him. It was all I could do to remain within the bounds of civil society.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Wild Bill

Yes, unfortunately they do walk among us, and they do reproduce.

The real difference between those of us who understand and follow the constitution and them is that we can remain civil and understand Rights belong to all and are not to be transgressed.

Those such as matthew are the ones that turn into Stalins and Hitlers, committing acts of evil while claiming to be doing it “For the good of all”. You and I know this well, but those like matthew are brain dead to reality.

RicksterAR
Guest
RicksterAR

Matthew D. You know what they say , birds of a feather. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard for you to understand ?

George Steele
Guest
George Steele

Your logic is flawed. “. . . because we have organizations like the NRA and the “I’m a militia” type of people many more irresponsible people have access to deadly weapons.” No, the NRA and “I’m a militia” type of person is NOT why irresponsible people have access. The NRA teaches responsible and safe handling of weapons. The “I’m a militia” type generally practices with, maintains, and knows safe handling practices. Irresponsible people have weapons, period – totally independent of either of these. Overwhelmingly, gun owners are responsible people – in my experience, more so than those who do not… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

Matthew, no, the NRA or whomever or whatever is not responsible for others’ behavior. The person committing the crime or who is being irresponsible is the one responsible for their actions and will be held so by our laws. Please explain how background checks verify whether or not one is responsible, sane or knows proper firearm safety. As to your “friend”, if you are being honest about that, I’m not sure how long I would still be that person’s friend, my life is worth much more than that. I have a relative that we took to the range once. He… Read more »

Rokflyer
Guest
Rokflyer

@MatthewD it’s a great country we have isn’t it. Even basement dwellers like yourself can have an opinion on a subject you have no knowledge of, and no investment in.

RotaryConnected
Guest
RotaryConnected

@Matthew…You could say the same thing about motor vehicles. Did your friend ever run into anyone/anything with his car ? Does he maintain it so that it is safe ? We don’t live in a perfect world, and everything that can go wrong, will. Do you think he should have his drivers lisence taken away ? Should we pass laws to deprive safe drivers from owning and driving cars because so many others have accidents and kill themselves and others ?

Ramjet
Guest
Ramjet

We must all make a stand before its too late,not only for us but for our kids,grandchildren & so on. How can we petition the court to rule also on (SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED). A prime example of this was the infringement on May 19,1986 when we were blindsided with a ban. There was absolutly nothing wrong with that law for 53 years & nothing could justify taking it away from the law abiding that wanted to be part of it & own a M.G. Also the NFA should be struck down because the tax money is not being used… Read more »

Rick
Guest
Rick

I’m happy to see DOJ writing generally in support of 2nd Amendment rights for a change, but what bothers me is that no one seems to take into account the true effect on interstate commerce. This leaves anti-gunners one of their best strategies– creating a network of inconsistent state and local laws that make it perilous or impossible for a person in one state to travel in or to another state while exercising this constitutional right. I disagree with DOJ on one big point. Our right to interstate travel is directly impaired when we are forced to give up a… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rick, Yes sir. When was the last time the USDOJ wrote a brief supporting the Second Amendment? And the USDOJ is cleverly using the commerce clause agains NY’s statute. In the past the commerce clause used to promulgate gun control in contravention of our Second Amendment Civil Rights. This is another Trump miracle!

Frank Rowe
Guest
Frank Rowe

Why can’t the people see , those wanting to control gun ownership is intended only for the masses,”not themselves- the perfect ones” how rule!

rich z
Guest
rich z

Remember, We The People Put these ANTI Gun people in office and keep RE ELECTING them Because they LIE.And no one see’s thru their lies.

Snarky Anarch
Guest
Snarky Anarch

Get off your high horse, y’all want to ban everything else and believe the State has the right to enforce morality. Ya’ll ain’t patriots, just a different breed of nannies.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Snarky Anarch

That’s not what Rich Z was saying. Re-read what he wrote. He’s talking about the stupidity of the lazy American voter who cant be bothered to learn the how’s and why’s of our country, they just push a button because it has a certain letter next to it.

Think before you post.

kim Hyde
Guest
kim Hyde

We the people must stand up for the rights that are being taken, after all those rights are written for us and our freedoms. Don’t become a communist nation, be an American and make a stand with us!!! You have the right, do not forget the people who died to give us that right,

D. Pettijohn
Guest
D. Pettijohn

I respectfully disagree. When guns laws are uniform throughout the US these ideas may work. They are not. Firstly UNIVERSAL background checks without loopholes. No sales by unliscensed dealers. Gun safety classes manditory. And prosecution of any gun owner whose gun is used by someone other than the owner of gun. To include accidental shootings and suicides. And no concealed carry permits for anyone. People with guns kill.

Alvin Rodrigues
Guest
Alvin Rodrigues

Then you should be held responsible if someone uses your car gets into an accident and someone is hurt or killed, you should be responsible if someone steals your car and someone gets hurt or killed. By the way owning a car is a privilege not a constitutional right but owning a gun is a constitutional right of all law abiding citizens.

Mark
Guest
Mark

So I don’t understand, WHERE IN THE HELL DIES IT SAY IN THE SECOND ADMENMINT DOES IT SAY ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS CAN CARRY FIRE ARMS ?? I,M A WAR VET and have been to war for EVERYONE,S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS FOR ALL OF US CITIZINS

Earl Langley
Guest
Earl Langley

Sir…owning a car is not a privilege…it is fundamentally a property right…just like owning a bicycle or a basket ball. The English common law PRESUMES lawfull use of property. Innocent until proven otherwise. Could you conceive of structuring a healthy society by any other presumption?

Greg K
Guest
Greg K

Exactly Correct! Take a few and explain this to Wild Bill. You can explain it much better than I.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Greg K

Simple explanation and clarification.

Owning a Car is a right. Operating it on roads is not. What the original comment was trying to say was that driving around in it is not a pre existing right as arms ownership and use is. You absolutely can buy a car, own it, and even drive it on your own property without license or insurance. Driving it onto other peoples property however is not a right. That is the difference.

Greg K
Guest
Greg K

@Revelator; I was referring to the “Common Law” aspect.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Greg K Common law is still under Constitutional law. And yes I do understand the difference. I have talked in the past concerning Acquisition vs Provision. One is a right, the other is not. Thanks to the Supremacy Clause, common law cannot over rule constitutional law. I have argued against Wild Bill in the past, but those arguments were made using the constitution. The way you are trying to single him out here does not fit a sensible expectation for the issue at hand. If you have an argument, present it based on the Constitution as no other law in… Read more »

Greg K
Guest
Greg K

@revelator, I already know all that stuff. It comes from a disagreement Bill and I had about how many Rights “Red Flags” are encroaching. I say they “Violate 1-9 and the 14th.” He says, just “2nd, 4-6.” The reason we have to include “Common Law” as outlined in the 7th, due to the Government “Taking Property without compensation and no Criminal charges being filed.” Thus it becomes a person hearsay argument, which falls under “Common Law.” I included the fact that the founders grappled with this very thing in the Federalist/Antifederalist debates. Some believed that if a Bill of Rights… Read more »

Wes walters
Guest
Wes walters

Apparently u haven’t read the statistics. Crime rates have fallen with implementation of concealed carry across the country. Should cops not have guns either. Because they get in trouble with there guns at higher rates than concealed carry licensees

Greg K
Guest
Greg K

Isn’t that strange…have given this some thought over the years, and on first blush, I thought it may be because the cops are subjected to a dirtier element more regularly then We Common Carriers. Not sure that’s the case. Let’s face it, it takes someone who will punch a scumbag in the mouth at a moments notice to be a good cop. Maybe it’s a little of both?

Get Out
Guest
Get Out

D.P., without a brain you do an awful lot of incomprehensible babbling?

terry ralston
Guest
terry ralston

you know why you cant enforce gun safety classes? because a right cannot have a requirement of licensing. its a right not a privilege, that why you can lose your privilege to drive. the only way you lose your right to own a gun is if you are a danger or a felon and even that may be unconstitutional

Mark
Guest
Mark

It is unlawful, just another fake ass law to hold people down.

Steve L
Guest
Steve L

I can’t sell my own privately owned property to my cousin? What would you consider to be a non loophole background check? You’re going to add extra fees to a process which is already prohibitively expensive for the poor, and unnecessary considering the internet? I can’t let my father borrow my hunting rifle? I can’t defend my life, or the life of others out side of my home? The purpose of firearms is to send a projectile further and faster than your hand can reach. Where that projectile goes is up to the person, not the firearm. Yes people with… Read more »

Richard L
Guest
Richard L

People kill with hammers, knives, chainsaws, bats ,cars, rope, poison, hands and feet, axes…name anything, . people will kill with it. You sir are a Dumb Ass

Shallnot BeInfringed
Guest
Shallnot BeInfringed

Actually I agree with one of Miss Petticoat’s mostly misguided premises… Gun safety classes SHOULD be “manditory” (sic.) They should be mandatory beginning in kindergarten, and proceeding throughout public and private schooling – and classes should be presented fully at taxpayers’ expense.

Only then will the problem of careless handling of firearms be reduced (since such can never be eliminated.) To deny this obvious fact is to deny reality.

Shallnot BeInfringed
Guest
Shallnot BeInfringed

Actually I agree with one of D Pettijohn’s mostly misguided premises… Gun safety classes SHOULD be “manditory” (sic.) They should be mandatory beginning in kindergarten, and proceeding throughout public and private schooling – and classes should be presented fully at taxpayers’ expense.

Only then will the problem of careless handling of firearms be reduced (since such can never be eliminated.) To deny this obvious fact is to deny reality.

Oh, BTW… define “unlicensed dealer”. If your definition includes private citizens selling their legal property to another private citizen, then your proposal fails. Again.

Shallnot BeInfringed
Guest
Shallnot BeInfringed

Hmmmm… After my comment was awaiting moderation and I refreshed the page, my comment was gone, so I reposted… Strange.

RicksterAR
Guest
RicksterAR

D.Pettijohn , you are the problem in this great country. You keep listening to the Pelosi’s and Brady bunch. Pull your head out of your ass and get a life. You and yours are not ever going to dictate my Rights away !

Joel Drotts
Guest
Joel Drotts

It is a legal falsehood to state a government, be it local, state, or federal may make criminal a right stated in the Constitution. So to is it with licensing, because why should any American trade a right in order to receive a mere privilege? Unfortunately, these cases and precedent were set or created, and controlling cases ruled upon at a time in this country when ignorance of the law and trust in the government both ran at dangerously high levels throughout this land. If you’ve noticed the push back on the social values pendulum that has always existed in… Read more »

Gregory P Dearth
Guest
Gregory P Dearth

It used to be a right to own slaves. Now that is illegal. So your statement, “It is a legal falsehood to state a government, be it local, state, or federal may make criminal a right stated in the Constitution” is simply false. In fact, any action not prohibited exclusively by law is equivalent to a right. That is, no document can possibly ever list every possible action individuals might want to take that should be their right. But the Constitution is a document. Nothing more or less. It can be amended. When it was writ, formal police forces, the… Read more »

RicksterAR
Guest
RicksterAR

Gregory P Dearth , rant much you troll. You are a poser if ever I did smell one.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rick, The troll that you have found has not even been to Constitutional kindergarden, yet. Even his analogies are wrong. Let starve the trolls.

m.
Guest
m.

foad

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@ gregory Dearth, You took a lot of space to preach the same speech all of us have heard from progressives before and they always own guns. All I can say to all of your verbiage is BULL SHIT.
Crawl back under your rock so no one takes any of your freedoms.

Big Jim
Guest
Big Jim

Do you know what you last name’s definition is?

Big Jim
Guest
Big Jim

@ Gregory P. Dearth

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@Gregory…I doubt it was a “right” to own slaves. It was just what the whole world did to people that they conquered. That is, if they didn’t kill them instead. Slavery was just the way of the world, and it still continues today. “White Slavery” is very much practiced in the Middle East and Africa today, and no doubt the Far East, and other places also. That is where white women are shangheid and sold to rich Arabs for their Harems. Recently, there were pics on the net of naked white women chained together, standing out on the desert while… Read more »

RicksterAR
Guest
RicksterAR

Joel Drifts , thank you , well said !!

RicksterAR
Guest
RicksterAR

Joel Drotts. My bad on the misspelling of your name.

tacticalguy
Guest
tacticalguy

Hopefully, SCOTUS goes much farther than just striking down the NY law. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they broadly stated that carry was legal in all places that was normal and open carry was lawful in every state?

D Walker
Guest
D Walker

The 2nd Amendment is my Gun Permit
Date issued. 12/15/1791
Date expires: NEVER…

Herbert Celler
Guest
Herbert Celler

Gun laws??,
Let the Anti gun Democrats make laws that criminals will obey and not punish the legal gun owners.
Our lives are just as important then any politician. “WE THE PEOPLE “

Bill Catz
Guest
Bill Catz

The “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amendment was lost a long time ago. Thousands of laws now infringe on the 2nd. The Supreme Court has NEVER upheld that. It has permitted infringement repeatedly.

Theodore Walter
Guest
Theodore Walter

There aren’t thousands of laws infringing on the second amendment.

Herbert Celler
Guest
Herbert Celler

Gun laws??,
Let the Anti gun Democrats make a law that criminal will obey

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

You sir, are ignorant! There are to date over 20,000 laws ont federal, State and local level that regulate all aspects of legal firearms owners, dealers and commerce and use! I would say that equals infringement but That may be just me.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

Theodore, it isn’t a matter of how many laws there are on “gun” crimes. The issue with “gun” crime is not the firearm, but the criminals that commit the crimes. Most “gun” crime would still be a crime regardless of object used, or, in the case of the over 1,600 murders (based on FBI stats) – hands, feet, and fists. Is being beaten to death more ethical and moral and somehow less of a crime than shooting a person? It is better than knifing a person? In the case of strong-arm rape, is it better that your mother, wife, daughter… Read more »

Mark
Guest
Mark

Non criminals doing just that, but there not criminals right? Fact is, anyone can do just what they want, and screw the people who has messed up at some point in there lives , and they will ALL WAYS BE A CRIMINAL.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

Mark, I am not sure what you are stating. Nowhere in my post did I state that criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms for self-defense. Nor will I venture down that path in this discussion. Are you stating that criminals should have the RKBA? Everyone has the right to self-defense, even the courts have ruled on that. Once someone has committed a crime and has been convicted, yes, he/she will always be labelled a criminal – because he/she is a convicted criminal. Since, I believe, 1939, under federal law, convicted felons are not legally allowed to obtain nor… Read more »

Laddyboy
Guest
Laddyboy

TROLL Theodore Walter;
When last counted, Local, State and Federal laws which INFRINGE upon the Second Amendment which only REAFFIRMS or RESTATES the RIGHT of LEGAL LAW ABIDING Americans of arms Ownership and Bearing of Arms were tallied at OVER 20,000 INFRINGEMENT LAWS. Do your research before you put your foot in YOUR mouth.

Rocky Mountain
Guest
Rocky Mountain

Quick, double check the TV settings because I think we just entered The Twilight Zone!!!!!
DOJ has zero authority to enforce laws beyond the text contained in 2A on citizens acting lawfully because IT IS SUPREME. Our right to defend ourselves, loved ones and community should never ever for any reason be called into question. Americans are the first and last line of defense in this country. Grab guns from those using them to commit violent crime and leave lawful Americans alone.
Respectfully, (since you’re reading this)