Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Coshy on October 25, 2007, 10:18:46 AM
-
I had some errands to run today, two were to local government offices, DHHR and DMV. Both places had prominent signage stating carrying a firearm was prohibited.
As these are government agencies isn't them prohibiting firearms an infringement of my right to bear arms?
I'm just really curious how this works. I'm sure its the same for other government buildings, post offices, courthouses, etc.
Any insight or comments?
-
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
sniffs.... swims away
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
pass back those burnt peanuts before you shift your chair over here MT.
-
*Looks at arms and wonders how to get fire from them*
:confused:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
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.
It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The militia bit simply acknowledges that a standing body of armed men is neccessary to secure freedoms.
-
as one congressman said to a reporter about a law that was overturned, "we pass a lot of unconstitutional laws around here".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
Cept that your forgetting the fact that if your a US citizen
You ARE the militia
-
Originally posted by texasmom
pass back those burnt peanuts before you shift your chair over here MT.
geez lugging this chair around is tiring... want a margarita TXMOM?
-
Originally posted by Coshy
I had some errands to run today, two were to local government offices, DHHR and DMV. Both places had prominent signage stating carrying a firearm was prohibited.
As these are government agencies isn't them prohibiting firearms an infringement of my right to bear arms?
I'm just really curious how this works. I'm sure its the same for other government buildings, post offices, courthouses, etc.
Any insight or comments?
Did it say "carring a firearm was prohibited"? or "carring an UNLICENSED firearm is prohibited"
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
geez lugging this chair around is tiring... want a margarita TXMOM?
Oh, thanks very much. You know, I actually don't drink at all. If you have any iced tea though, I'd love some of that.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Did it say "carring a firearm was prohibited"? or "carring an UNLICENSED firearm is prohibited"
It was a simple printed sign that said no firearms allowed.
I'm not trolling or looking to stir the pot, I'm really wondering how this is possible. How can a government agency tell me I cant carry a firearm? There are no signs saying I cant, for example, give a speech on my thoughts about the substitution of high frutcose corn syrup for sugar in my soda. Nor are they telling me I dont have the right to vote while on their premises (19th ammendment).
I can understand the purpose of prohibiting firearms, but I cant seem to wrap my head around how they are legally able to do it.
As for the rest of the spectators ... I'm actually seriously looking for how this is right. I really can't wrap my head around it.
-
Originally posted by Coshy
As for the rest of the spectators ... I'm actually seriously looking for how this is right. I really can't wrap my head around it.
We're seriously watching for the same thing. But we'll keep it down from now on. Sorry.
pssst.. y'all... sshhh!
-
Originally posted by Coshy
It was a simple printed sign that said no firearms allowed.
I'm not trolling or looking to stir the pot, I'm really wondering how this is possible. How can a government agency tell me I cant carry a firearm? There are no signs saying I cant, for example, give a speech on my thoughts about the substitution of high frutcose corn syrup for sugar in my soda. Nor are they telling me I dont have the right to vote while on their premises (19th ammendment).
I can understand the purpose of prohibiting firearms, but I cant seem to wrap my head around how they are legally able to do it.
As for the rest of the spectators ... I'm actually seriously looking for how this is right. I really can't wrap my head around it.
It's possible because for us to challenge ANYTHING constitutionally would cost us millions of dollars. They rest that no one will really pay millions of dollars to overthrow the no firearms signs on DMV's.
-
Originally posted by Coshy
It was a simple printed sign that said no firearms allowed.
I'm not trolling or looking to stir the pot, I'm really wondering how this is possible.
And I'm not suggesting you are trolling or stirring... I am just pointing out the difference. All the signs I can recall seeing say "possesion of an unlicensed firearm is prohibited"... I cant say I recall the signs in the post office, I just recall the signs on bars and liquior stores :cool: I guess I'll have to check it out next time.
Are you sure it said what you think it said... sometimes we read with out reading...
-
DHHR and DMV. Both places had prominent signage stating carrying a firearm was prohibited.
====
Well if a crazy freak ever wanted to barge into a government office and gun down a bunch of defenseless twits, those two places would be a safe place to start :rofl
-
Militia= National Guard.
-
nice try shrimp. heres my state constitution:
====
ARTICLE X
MILITIA
SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY.
All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.
SECTION 2 ORGANIZATION - DISCIPLINE - OFFICERS - POWER TO CALL OUT.
The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as it may deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
SECTION 3 SOLDIERS' HOME.
The legislature shall provide by law for the maintenance of a soldiers' home for honorably discharged Union soldiers, sailors, marines and members of the state militia disabled while in the line of duty and who are bona fide citizens of the state.
SECTION 4 PUBLIC ARMS.
The legislature shall provide by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.
SECTION 5 PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST.
The militia shall, in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at musters and elections of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.
SECTION 6 EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY DUTY.
No person or persons, having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person or persons shall pay an equivalent for such exemption.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)
"fact" eh?
-
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/militia
Main Entry:
mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
The National Guard would seem to be exempt from the definition of Militia since it can be called up by the Federal government w/o it being an actual emergency.
-
You sir would be correct.
-
wow...so they made a whole amendment just to make sure that no one could take away the right of the army to bear arms? seems a little strange.
does that mean that if you are in the national guard or a militia that no one can disarm you... even the government?
nope... just as the courts recently ruled.. the "people" means... well... the people. just like everywhere else in the constitution.. the "militia" means... every able bodied man. It does not mean he signed up for anything tho.
it simply means that we need the militia, an armed population and that when we need em... they are to come running bearing the arms that they have. that they are constitutionally guarenteed.
you can't really see it any other way... no serious constitutional scholar sees it any other way.
lazs
-
Here I was hoping to get some insight into my question, but instead we are now onto the definition of a militia.
Does anyone have anything to comment about the question at hand, or is this going to turn into a anti-gun/NRA type discussion?
Bars and liquor stores I can understand, they are private business and the owner(s) can set the rules.
-
you can't really see it any other way... no serious constitutional scholar sees it any other way.
Yep. They are starting to acknowledge, even some highly regarded liberal constitutional scholars like Lawrence Tribe, that the historic view of the 2nd Amendment was right, and not the modern, more progressive view we have had for only 30-40 years or so. It is so clear that the Circuit Court findings in Parker/Heller overturning the DC handgun ban was a clear smack down to the collective rights argument. The DC response was a total joke that bypassed the actual issues at had to then argue that a right or not, WE MUST SAVE THE CHILDREN! The SCOTUS will likely hear it (unless they chicken out) and the though is not that the outcome is clearly in doubt (individual vs collective) but just how broad or narrow the finding will be. Though, you never know for sure until the robed ones do their thing.
BTW, Parker/Heller was brought about by the Libertarian CATO Institute and not the NRA, which actually fought the case at some points. The next stop on the trip are similar lawsuits in Chicago, etc.
Further reading:
No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.
Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.
According to the so-called “living Constitution” championed by liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, amendments are a waste of time since enlightened jurists can simply “breathe new life” into the meaning of the Constitution. No more, if Wittes and Co. have their way. Now, we’ll have to have an argument.
“It’s true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now,” Wittes concedes. “That doesn’t bother me. It should be hard to take away a constitutional right.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWUwMDZhMjI0MGNmZjc4NDEwMjUwZGZkZDM1ZDhkNzQ=
What right is protected by the Second Amendment? According to Henigan, it's only the right to bear arms in conjunction with actual militia service. Never mind that pistols, with an obvious military use, cannot be privately owned in the nation's capital for any purpose whatsoever. Where, then, would a D.C. resident obtain a weapon for militia service? Not to worry, argues Henigan. After all, "[n]o modern militia depends for its viability on privately owned arms," and the Second Amendment was not written to protect some "fantasy militia of which ordinary gun owners can be members without ever having to report for militia duty." There's so much wrong with this argument that it's hard to know where to start.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8190
-
Originally posted by Coshy
Here I was hoping to get some insight into my question, but instead we are now onto the definition of a militia.
Does anyone have anything to comment about the question at hand, or is this going to turn into a anti-gun/NRA type discussion?
Bars and liquor stores I can understand, they are private business and the owner(s) can set the rules.
Actually the Feds, States, and local laws apply. I believe its a Federal law no unlicensed firearms were alcohol is served or sold, including convience stores. Of course we all notice how the signs keep down convience and liquor store robberies...
-
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9iby56n_iBH2RYBLVyjzbkF/SIG=12i1mejqv/EXP=1193431079/**http%3A//picsforlue.tripod.com/pics/Thread_Has_Been_Hijacked.jpg)
-
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/hope016.jpg)
-
go ahead acfireguy26 feed the fire.
"unlicensed firearms ", florida does not license firarms, so what does that law mean?
-
Your back should hurt when you wake up.
-
Originally posted by john9001
go ahead acfireguy26 feed the fire.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/feedingthefire.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Coshy
It was a simple printed sign that said no firearms allowed.
I'm not trolling or looking to stir the pot, I'm really wondering how this is possible. How can a government agency tell me I cant carry a firearm? There are no signs saying I cant, for example, give a speech on my thoughts about the substitution of high frutcose corn syrup for sugar in my soda. Nor are they telling me I dont have the right to vote while on their premises (19th ammendment).
I can understand the purpose of prohibiting firearms, but I cant seem to wrap my head around how they are legally able to do it.
As for the rest of the spectators ... I'm actually seriously looking for how this is right. I really can't wrap my head around it.
Somewhere on the sign is usually the code section reference, and those always have a long list of exceptions...for cops et al.
But its nice to know signs like that are there, just a reminder to the crips, bloods, cholos and other criminals to leave their illegal carried firearm in the car this time... they took the time to make a sign so they must really mean it.
-
the term Militia in the 2nd Ammendment was meant to reference all those people who had their own weapons and were able to come together to help fight threats. Exactly as what happened in the Revolutionary war.
-
Thats not what the Supreme Court decided in the late 90s.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Thats not what the Supreme Court decided in the late 90s.
the Supreme Court has not always been right.
-
Thats not what the Supreme Court decided in the late 90s.
Please enlighten us. I'm not aware of any major supreme court decisions since Miller that remotely touch the core of the issue. Poor abused Miller, that seems to guarantee my right to own a select fire, M-16 more than anything else.
Charon
-
Simply put.... the law allows one to carry in most states with a license from the state you intend to carry in. The law also allows for any business or public venue to prohibit firearms at their discretion.
-
Your back should hurt when you wake up.
Hey Straffo, there's actually quite an active AR-15 shooting community in France. You guys are actually pretty cool by European gun law standards :aok
Charon
-
Originally posted by Coshy
I had some errands to run today, two were to local government offices, DHHR and DMV. Both places had prominent signage stating carrying a firearm was prohibited.
As these are government agencies isn't them prohibiting firearms an infringement of my right to bear arms?
I'm just really curious how this works. I'm sure its the same for other government buildings, post offices, courthouses, etc.
Any insight or comments?
does the government or any of its agencies own the actual building?
-
(http://www.zebench.com/public/zeBench/Drole/the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg)
-
hehehe, that pic has been stolen
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.
A common misconception. The Bill of Rights addresses individual rights, not public or State's rights.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Cept that your forgetting the fact that if your a US citizen
You ARE the militia
Yaeh, but the Gummint needs to supply me with more fiber if they want me to be well regulated.
-Sik
-
yep... I know of no supreme court ruling that says that the second is not a right of the people.
The most recent ruling in DC was that it was indeed an individual right.
I think that anyone thinking of voting for democrats as a "protest" or some worthless independent should realize that a supreme court with a couple of hillary apointments would destroy the country...... starting with the constitution.
What good are amendments that give the government power? The second is to make sure that the government does not usurp the peoples rights... as are all the rest.
Why anyone would want to disarm the people tho is beyond me. What kind of person is afraid of his neighbor being able to defend himself?
lazs