No one is going to take your guns

[Pogo]

No offense- That's because you are an Obama supporter, which means logic escapes you.

-Geaux

And where do you get that idea?



"which MO shows in your sig"? You don't even have a sig. You used to, until I pointed out that it was bogus...

Like most of your post lol...

-Geaux

So -- no answer to anything. Check.

Have a fine gobblegobble meal and regroup.

 

[Plasmaball]

I smell fake..I would have heard about this.just like free speech your right to bear arms is not absolute.

Your rights might not be absolute, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you.

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

The Supreme Court already ruled that citizens have the right to defend themselves with lethal force against unlawful arrest or assault or theft.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land.

And the link to where SCOTUS ruled murder Constitutional is.... where again?

It's self defense agianst government thugs, not murder. The Government has REVOLTED against the shackles of the Constitution. That makes the Governmenta tyranny and criminal. You have the right to defend yourself from thugs.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’

 

[Plasmaball]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

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.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Scalia also stated the state has the right to force you to lock up your gun in a case..

 

[hunarcy]

It looks more like they changed the law and are now trying to enforce that change on people who registered guns that were perfectly legal.

It is stupid to say the least and it does shoot the shit out of the whole ‘no one is taking your guns’ argument because here they are – taking this persons guns.

that is why

registration always = confiscation

I support a testing and licensing procedure similar to obtaining a driver's license.
I see no harm in requiring gun owners to take some kind of safety course then becoming licensed upon passing said course.
After all, in order to get a permit( In NC) one must submit to a background check by local or county law enforcement. For concealed carry, one must take a safety and knowledge course, show proficiency and knowledge of the firearm one will carry before the permit is issued.

So you support infringing on the rights of your fellow citizens to keep and bear arms unless they can afford to purchase a permit and pass a class, which will not be free. So, the reality is that you seek to limit the rights of the poor while the rich can do what they will. You are presenting an elitist point of view that you are trying to make sound reasonable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

It seems that NYC is ordering people to surrender their weapons, or else.

Doug Ross @ Journal: IT BEGINS: New York Gun Confiscation Letters Arrive

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

Only if you apply laws ex post facto, which actually violates the Constitution and a few court precedents.

Dope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

Which is the entire point of the thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dear Democrats:

You own whatever comes out of this. If government officials are shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens, the onus is on you. There are just some things you don't do: Don't hit on another man's woman, ride another man's Harley, and don't mess with his guns.

I'm sure the same goes for the ladies as well.

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

The Supreme Court already ruled that citizens have the right to defend themselves with lethal force against unlawful arrest or assault or theft.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald Courts authorized the use of lethal force against ‘unlawful arrest.’

And it’s telling how you and others on the right suddenly don’t consider Supreme Court decisions to be the highest law of the land when it comes to privacy rights, rights for homosexuals, or the ACA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't like the laws, blame your city legislators. Evidently, many in NYC are opposed to certain firearms. For the record, I am VERY pro-gun. While growing up, my father never left the house without a pistol. A thug that he'd arrested in the late 70's, had threatened to kill him, my mother, and we his children. And he's now in prison for life, for a double shooting (one fatality-female) in 1991. Dad knew what the man was capable of.

If one has never truly feared for his/her life, or grown up in a family with a precarious position in the world, you will have a difficult time convincing them of firearm necessity. In an ideal world, no one would need or have weapons; but we don't live in an ideal world. It's curious to me, why NYPD would agree to enforce this...unless:

1. People in upper levels: (Chiefs, lieutenants, etc...) are benefitting.
2. The street cops are finding themselves frequently outgunned.
My guess is the latter.

If the politicians in New York actually cared about what people thought on the issues there wouldn't be laws making it illegal to buy a soda in a restaurant. The only thing they care about is the money Bloomberg throws around when he wants to fix things for the peons.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Neither the Heller nor McDonald Courts authorized the use of lethal force against ‘unlawful arrest.’

And it’s telling how you and others on the right suddenly don’t consider Supreme Court decisions to be the highest law of the land when it comes to privacy rights, rights for homosexuals, or the ACA.

I already provided links to Heller and Mcdonald era Courts that made that ruling. Check above.

Also I do believe in privacy rights and rights for homosexuals. A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

How does it make it easier to hide illegal guns if I don't register my guns? Do the police have a magic exception to the Constitution that lets them search houses that don't register guns? Would you serve them hot chocolate if they rousted you out of bed at 3 AM simply because you haven't registered the guns you don't own?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

Making laws that nobody obeys is even dumber, but you are so stupid you don't see that part.

 

[hunarcy]

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

How does not registering guns make it easier to conceal "illegal guns"?

Why should guns be illegal in the first place?

Honestly, the answer is to effectively deal with criminals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

The guns were not confiscated, and they got paid for them.

That doesn't make sense even if I turn my brain off. In fact, you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

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.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

Unlike you, I can read, so I don't need a judge to tell me what the Constitution means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

Good point.

Since criminals don't obey laws about car theft we should make everyone who owns a car tell the police where they are whenever they are in their car. That way, people with stolen cars won't be able to hide behind all the legal cars on the road.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

Criminals are not allowed to own firearms, one cannot ‘register’ something he is disallowed to own. That criminals ignore or violate the law doesn’t make the law invalid.

Rightwing nitwits have been making the failed ‘legal gun owner as “victim”’ argument for decades now, and all they’ve succeeded in doing is to make gun owners sound strident and stupid.

Gun registration laws are un-Constitutional because they manifest an undue burden to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights, absent documented evidence in support, lacking a legitimate legislative end.

Our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment can be protected only by arguing the law, not by arguing failed, moronic NRA talking points.

Damn, you are stupid.

The case he is referring to specifically made it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime to own a weapon without registering it. When they found a criminal in possession of a weapon they prosecuted, and convicted, him. He won on appeal when the Supreme court said that his right to remain silent trumped the state power to force criminals to register their guns.

Logically, since non criminals also have a right to remain silent, you cannot be found guilty of not registering a weapon even if you are not a criminal. Ergo, no one has to register their weapons, especially if they intend to break a law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

why are you so dense

the felon in possession is charged with having a firearm

as it is anywhere in the United States

they according to the Supreme Court

can not be charged for failure to register the firearm

for the third time

criminals can not be compelled to register a firearm period

nor can they be convicted for failure to do so

the registration system only applies to the law abiding

registration does nothing to stop a criminal from having a firearm

You aren't aware that having an unregistered handgun in NY is a crime?

Are you aware that it is impossible to stay in New York for more than 5 minutes without breaking a law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It looks more like they changed the law and are now trying to enforce that change on people who registered guns that were perfectly legal.

It is stupid to say the least and it does shoot the shit out of the whole ‘no one is taking your guns’ argument because here they are – taking this persons guns.

that is why

registration always = confiscation

I support a testing and licensing procedure similar to obtaining a driver's license.
I see no harm in requiring gun owners to take some kind of safety course then becoming licensed upon passing said course.
After all, in order to get a permit( In NC) one must submit to a background check by local or county law enforcement. For concealed carry, one must take a safety and knowledge course, show proficiency and knowledge of the firearm one will carry before the permit is issued.

That would allow everyone, including criminals and the mentally bat shit, to won a gun without any background checks, no hassle from the government, and no way to pretext us from ourselves, which is why all the statists oppose it without being able to articulate a good reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

I smell fake..I would have heard about this.just like free speech your right to bear arms is not absolute.

Your rights might not be absolute, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you.

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

And the power of the state to infringe is not absolute either. Missed that part, eh?