Kentucky bans cities from banning firearms

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
So if arms cannot be bought or sold or manufactured.In say 300 years that change would not affect anyones right to bear arms?

The right to bear arms is not the right to manufacture and sell arms. If it was they wouldn't be able to put restrictions on any arms. Just like the right to use medical cannabis, by state law, is not a right to manufacture beyond personal use. That is why the feds can raid cannabis clubs.

Yes it is a contradiction, but that is the how the law works. Seems like you just want to intemperate the constitution to suit yourself.

Seems like you just want to run to the safety of semantics so suit yourself.

Also seems to me this is the same reverence for government power that caused England to be lost and become a police state. Now you're bringing it here? Nice....

reply to post by candlelight


Thank you.

The right to bear arms is not the right to manufacture and sell.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by ANOK

 

bear arms means carry them and if we cant make them how can we carry them.?

I can squat over 400 lbs I wonder what kind of hardware I could bear?

I may be moving to Kentucky. To hell with them damn Yankee and there Obummer bans. Yeehaw.


Come get some.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
So if arms cannot be bought or sold or manufactured.In say 300 years that change would not affect anyones right to bear arms?

The right to bear arms is not the right to manufacture and sell arms. If it was they wouldn't be able to put restrictions on any arms. Just like the right to use medical cannabis, by state law, is not a right to manufacture beyond personal use. That is why the feds can raid cannabis clubs.

Yes it is a contradiction, but that is the how the law works. Seems like you just want to intemperate the constitution to suit yourself.

The right to bear arms is not the right to manufacture and sell arms

Yes it is,If we could not manufacture or sell arms.Down the road someone right to bear arms will be infringed upon.

Just like the right to use medical cannabis

That is not a Constitutional right.If it is show me.

That is why the feds can raid cannabis clubs

No the goverment can raid cannabis clubs without repercussion .Because they assume "implied responsibility"
under the Supremacy Clause.But they can not use the Supremacy Clause if it is unconstitutional.

Take these words to heart.Maybe they will help you.

"It's not denial,I'm just selective about the reality I accept"

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


That, plus cali kisses FED ass, and the local authorities let the FED come in and do it.

The meaning of the right to keep and bear arms: The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia.[1]

The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States), although similar legal wording can be found in the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence". Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Good post.

Your chart on gun use for family safety.Left out one use for pistols.

Enough4another said.....

"pistols are used to fight your way back to your rifle"

If we are going to use it let us get it right, and all the wording proper. This way there is no mistaking what our rights really are in the way of guns

reply to post by TKDRL

That and they're a bunch of mamby pamby wishy washy perrier drinking sissies.

Also notice that this came about from the 1600`s when it was seen that weapons were needed for defence. 1689 to be exact.

Meaning of "keep and bear arms" In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms: Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died

en.wikipedia.org... pretty informative for a wiki article on such an important matter and thats how they ruled in dc vs heller and the above is the majority opinion

Now for the research, who can legally make them?? It seems that this is the issue at hand now. As I have been able to find out it requires a FFL License, and who issues this but the Fed. Gov`t. a class 3 if you build automatic weapons. It pretty much looks like they have the manufacture part of them pretty secure.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

In a place like KY, that, plus deputize every willing armed citizen, there will be a army waiting for the feds

Yep, it would be the "Battle of Athens" all over again.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia. I think this pretty much speaks for itself.[1]

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

cannibals(hemp) is not covered in the constitution its WRITTEN on it

perhaps they thought that was a strong enough statement

The Dude can abide by that

reply to post by candlelight


aside from class three weapons i belive any one can make any gun they wish with no limit on the number or type (assuming they are legal).the trouble begins when you want to SELL said fire arm. as far as i could find its legal to make your own guns assuming they dont violate any federal laws and are not sold

some states have laws that prohibit such things like california and oregon for example

also some other laws come into play if manufacturing an "assult weapon" where as you must use a set amount or built it entirely out of united states made gun parts/componets

A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [Back] With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105] Translation: It IS legal for an individual build a post ban compliant firearm from any combination of parts that could legally be assembled into a legal commercially available firearm by a manufacturer or importer. This includes designs based on the AR15, AK, FAL, 1911 and others that are not protected by patent rights.

www.savvysurvivor.com... so yeah make them all you want just dont sell them or if you do do it legally

reply to post by candlelight

en.wikipedia.org...

Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.[146] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).[146]

this states that it does not only limit it to the milita

Justice Breyer, in his own dissent and speaking only for himself, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an 'individual' right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred".[162] Regarding the term "well regulated", the majority opinion said: "The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[123] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.

so yeah we do have an individual right to bear arms for non militia purposes

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


That is not the wording of the constitution, it might be the decision of a court, but not the original meaning of our forefathers. As for me I follow the original meaning not what some paid off corp. judger has to say.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


And yes you are right about making the guns for your own personal use, this is by all practicle purposes legal, but don`t sell them, unless you are in Tennessee, here it is legal to do that, as long as it is is a private sale, as it stands now. Also If your state has the law on its books that states the weapons or ammo is produced by a legal company within the state you live in they can be sold without the federeral gov`t interference. Tennessee has this also.