The Gun Blogs

Those of you clamoring to get the state to "let" you carry firearms are misguided in my opinion. We ought to be fighting to get back rights that have been taken away by things like the Hughes ammendment, not to have more licensure of things that ought to be rights.

I voted reform the BATF, but what I have in mind is splitting firearms off from alcohol and tobacco. BATF essentially enforces temperance, and firearms temperance is not a good thing. That whole mindset needs to change.

We have won on the CCW issue ... people in non-ccw states need to get more acive. The rest of us can bail them out later ... the '86 moratorium needs to go down ASAP, in my opinion.

Getting the Supreme Court to definitively state that
a) the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution
b) it means what it says
c) the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates this to all of the states
d) so all of your gun grabbin, gun banning, permit demanding nonsense is out.

James

Similar to what Ref said, that organization needs to either be rebuilt from the ground up, or done away with altogether.

And, to add on to what Jmaes said, I'd like to see all "interpretations" of the Constitution by the Court be wiped away.

Widespread (nationwide or state by state) "Stand Your Ground" type laws that will protect people who use lawful, lethal self-defense from B.S. civil lawsuits.

Also, the BATF should be abolished. Period. If such an agency needs to exist, it should be rebuilt from the ground up.

I'm sure a lot of people won't agree with that last one, but so be it.

I also agree with James's comment above about clarifying the Second Amendment, but I expect that's about as likely as the abolition of the BATF.

Reforming the BATF and enumerating the 2A as an individual right are the two most important on that list, to me at least. Living in CA, I can see those two things making the single biggest impact in our battles with our state DOJ and the Ninth Circuit.

I'd like to see no federal/state/local laws preventing manufacture, commerce, posession or use of sound suppressors. My ears could sure use the break.

86, in my opinion.

Definitely urgent, and has been for 20 years.

I of course will vote for the destruction of ATF.

They are the Red Coats among us, and beyond corrupt. They are the dark, behind-the-scenes, goonsquad to carry out the abolishment of FFL dealers, and gun-owners.

Please help support this site: www.atfabuse.com

Bring to light any cases of ATF Abuse you know of. What if people like the APFN didn't put alot of effort into what happend at Waco? There would be less outrage, and less knowledge on what happend, today.

Sincerely, C.H.

The first 5 are priority ONE and should have been a long time ago. The rest are either minor or unrealistic (national ccw is a pipe dream with an anti gun/pro government U.S. senate, and ccw is better fixed at the state level anyway).

We are in mortal danger as long as there is a "sporting purpose" test. I'm not exaggerating either. Serious and immediate mortal danger. If you let that sink in, you'll see what I mean. Government starts to think it has a right to wage a war on americans possessing CERTAIN drugs, and wage no knock warrants, when there is an illegal "sporting purpose" test.

Our "focus" should be the basics, and I can't believe this one isn't on the list, no I'm outraged that it's not on the list:

GET OFF YOUR DUFF, STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND RE-CONSTITUTE YOUR INDEPENDENT, LOCAL MILITIA!!!!!!!

One more of the basics, is "gun rights activists" (that should read 2nd amendment activists because guns DON'T have rights), is that every alleged "gun rights activist" should have multiple "assault rifles/pistols." Support non government suck up gun companies, like MasterPiece Arms who make this new "mini MAC" 9mm of mine:

Once the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, all gun control laws and the BATFE are finished as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No CCW requirements, no 4473 forms, no State and Local gun laws. Shall not be infringed means just that, NO laws controlling ownership and usage of guns.
If the Government thinks someone should be disbarred the use of guns, that person should be in jail until such time as they are deemed worth to regain that right and rejoin society. Gun ownership is a CIVIL RIGHT as well as being a GOD GIVEN right.

Let's close the doors on the BATF and send the employees to Border Patrol. That "Kill's two birds with one stone".

See you at the range
Tom Neal

The easiest thing to do would be to end the ban on carrying in national parks. So that'd get my vote for a first step.

But going after the NFA would be next on my list. Followed by the GCA & the Hughes Amendment & Brady & Lautenburg. Plus if we eliminate the NFA & GCA then the ATF will pretty much implode harmlessly w/o any more effort on our part.

But picking one to start it'd be the ban on weapons in national parks. It's easy to accomplish & a very effective PR campaign can be used that will swing some folks to our side of life.

If the Supreme Court finally gets off its but and rules on a bill of rights issue then all the gun laws become issues that can be fought in court. But since the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on a strictly bill of rights issue since Roe vs. Wade don't look for this to happen unless they are forced into it.

Going to the Supreme Court is a bit of a risky gamble. The pro-gun movement also needs to be united on a court strategy, because doing it wrong could have grave consequences. We've already seen how risky the courts are with the Silveria case, which was not the right case to take before The Court in order to get a ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. I know it seems like it should be easy, and that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, but it's not easy.

Even if we can get the Supreme Court to, say, throw out the DC gun ban. The lower courts, many of which are outright hostile to gun rights (and also happen to be in the districts and circuits with the worst gun laws), will get to decide much of the scope of that right, and I expect them to interpret it as narrowly as they possibly can. Even the 5th circuit signed onto the constitutionality of Lautenberg.

Think about that before thinking the courts should be the first priority.

you are right, if they get the courts to do what is right then that stops everything else.

It's high time that the Supreme Court made a definate decision on the Second Amendment.

Our energies need to be focused on the core problem. All of the limitations on RKBA stem from the belief by law makers and anti-gun groups that we do not have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bare arms without infringement. Until that argument is settled then every other change will be limited in some way not conducive to the founding fathers wishes. For example we have CHL in most states now, great...but can I carry to church, a park, a court house, a sporting event, a school, or a theme park? Until the USSC sets the constitutional precedent we will always be behind the curve.
I agree that the ATF should be disbanded, but the best way to do that is to make the laws that they twist and abuse unconstitutional. And that pretty much goes for all of the rest of the limitations in the poll. Once they become unconstitutional, then they will go away by default.
We will get there. Y'all take care.

The Supreme Court does NOT interpret the Constitution, rather it makes it up as it goes along. Many of its decisions constitute acts of treason. One only needs to examine its decisions relating to the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The 1st does NOT apply to states or local municipalities. "The separation of church and state" is a fabrication of the Supreme Court. The Court is a body political in nature, not judicial; and it frequently perjures itself in order to achieve its desired "I am holier than thou" outcome.

It is a right to carry and protect ones self and others who are in grave danger, this right is given to us by our creator. The state/ federal government do not have a right to demand a licence for something that is a right given to us by our creator, licencing is a form of registration. The castle doc. is a right given to us by our creator, but D.A./ LEO's/ government wants to keep the public in fear and that only they can protect us.

People seem to believe that a positive ruling in the Supreme Court would mean suddenly all the federal gun control laws go out the window, along with the ATF. I don't think this is realistic. The most likely scenario we have right now is that the Supreme Court tosses out the DC gun ban as a violation of the second amendment.

But it won't stop there. If you want to get rid of, say, the CA assault weapons ban, you have to a) convince The Court to incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states and b) that the assault weapons ban substantially limits ones right to bear arms.

This seems facially easy, but it's not. Don't assume the courts will see things the same way you do. The chances are they won't. Even if we get the Supreme Court to throw out a gun law because of the second amendment, that's only the beginning of the fight, and in my view, we'll probably lose more battles than we win. The end result, I would be willing to bet, is a constitutional interpretation of the scope of the second amendment that preserves 90% of the current gun laws.

The courts just really aren't that brave these days. I don't see them tossing aside 20,000+ gun laws. They are far more likly to dissapoint us, I think.

Will you please put the results even with the option instead of one space down. It makes the results hard to read.

"Other (specify and I'll add it)"

I'm wondering when you're going to add this item that "gun rights activists" should focus on: re-constitute your local, independent MILITIA

The existence of local, independence militias, sends a POWERFUL message. The importance of that message has been forgotten. Until gun owners figure this out, they're always going to be wondering why few if any take them seriously.

Stacy, lines up fine for me. And I add things when people ask me to but think we're too far in the poll for it to make a difference.

--
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

Torn, between repealing the 1968 FCA and getting the SCOTUS to weigh in on the RTKBA.

Miller is long overdue for clarification, but the 1968 prior restraint law is just terrible.

I ended up voting for getting a rulling from the SCOTUS.

...is scary as heck. A forced 2A case could just as easily go against us as for us, which is why no one has been particularly enthusiastic about pushing for SCOTUS to rule. WE are sure we're right, but God alone knows what lawyers and judges think...

I voted for BATFE reform, because that's where the pain and suffering is right now. Second, I'd say National CCW. I agree that allowing carry in national parks is a micro-issue I'd like to see addressed...I'd also like to see the '68 GCA struck down as well.

Michael B

RE, the purpose of gun rights activists in future: Continue to build on the public's awareness of the shooting sports and self-defense, especially handgun awareness. Shooting in the olympics is never publicized, unless you take a big city paper and read print smaller than a baseball box score. Unless you're paying extra for a high dollar cable or satellite ad-on, the television networks show only "bad news" relative to guns. A difinitive, and accurrate statement about the founders intent for the 2nd Amendment fron the Supreme Court would be hushed by the networks.
Wherever possible, show the shooters and show the targets.

This language has been used to keep us from ouwing arms to resist the force of unjust laws being applyed to the constitution. We are grossly out-guned by our government. This decission by the supreme court has been used when ever they think it won't be chalanged because it is truely unconstitutional.

I was recently convicted of "unlawfull use of a weapon to intimidate another". Im looking for a different lawyer (even though mine did a great job) and an exceptional appeal lawyer. The short version: Two of my friends were in a fight got knocked out and (the cities witness testified) " both guys were knocked unconcous hit their head on the ground and went into siezures." I was grabbed from behind and shouted "get off me I have a gun, get off me I have a gun" when I tried to intervene. The cities version has me pulling my shirt up saying "yea you know what this is, or something to that nature". I did not pull my weapon or threaten anyone with it, yet I was still convicted. Any positive advice would be of great help. Oh and the judge sentenced me to 6 months. Her suggestion to me is that I should have called the police and waited for them.

Im right there with ya bud. The ATF has been out of control for far to long.

Reading these comments I realized we are just as scattered and fractured a group you are likely to find any where. I agree with almost every one here, all at the same time. How indecisive is that? I ended up voting for the Supreme Court to rule on the 2nd for the following reasons:
I believe that the D.C. case is as good of a case as we can get to support the 2nd. Yes, it's risky. It can backfire on us in horrible fashion, but I think that the nation as a whole needs this.
It would open the door for many unjust gun laws to go the way of the Dodo. It would not get rid of ALL gun laws just as the courts has reaffirmed many times that you have the right to free speech, you DO NOT have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre.
It would deny the anti-gunners a major arrow in their quiver that they have relied on for the last 30 years. In effect it takes away any illusion of legitimacy and that in itself would be worth it.
Any way, thats my two cents worth.

I own 23 guns, but someone should be still in jail if he cannot safely handle one. I guess you have your opinion. A bit extreme I think but you have your right to an opinion.

I never was a member of the NRA because I felt they took their beliefs to the extreme, until I saw that Columbine movie by that fat Hollywood Director. When he said that the KKK now calls itself the NRA, the NRA got them a new member.

Not much of a fan to extremism, but I will agree with you it is our right according to the Constitution to own a gun. If I knew the anti - gun people would stop at assualt rifles I would agree with them. But they won't. After that it will handguns and then highpowered rifles and so on until they have em all.

I say, if they are going to outlaw guns, then they need to outlaw cars and trucks too. This way we can totally eliminate drive by shootings, car chases on TV, and save thousands upon thousands of lives.

Now that is what you call extreme. Lock and load.

You know, I've never, ever heard any politician say they want to take away my hunting rifle. This is a false argument created by gun lobbyists like the NRA. Why? because the NRA is paid by gun manufacturer's to do and say anything to protect their profits (blood money) with no interest to public saftey. The only way that Psycho at Virginia Tech was able to kill 32 of his fellow students was because he had easy access to a semi-automatic handgun. Yeah, I know the NRA counter arguments so let's go over them:

1. NRA " if we did a better job locking up the criminals, we wouldn't have these kind of incidents". Well, this psycho never had a criminal record until he decided to shoot 32 people.
Neither did those two wack jobs at Columbine. So, there goes that arguement.

2. NRA: Because the school was a "gun-free zone" this left the victims defensless.
Do we really want to live in a society where everyone is walking around armed to the teeth. Has it really come to that? Doesn't common sense tell you that if everyone was carrying around a handgun there would be a hell of a lot more shootings. Hey you dented my car..bang!..
Hey you insulted my girlfriend, I'm drunk...bang!... My wife won't stop nagging me....bang!
In the old west everyone carried a pistol, guess what, it was a really dangerous place to live.
3. If we put restrictions on handguns only the criminal will have weapons and the rest of us will be sitting ducks.
B.S.. Pass a law, all handguns must be turned into the police by a certain date. They're melted down. Pass a law banning the manufacturing and importation of hanguns and ammo. After that, hard core felony and prison time for anyone caught with an unlicensed handgun. After that, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone carrying a handgun.

NRA: the 2nd Ammendment- Yeah, Thomas Jefferson wanted a nation of gangsta rappers running around the streets with tech 9's. The second ammendment simply call for having a National Guard in place, again it's been distorted by greedy gun manufacturers to protect their blood money.

True 99% of handgun owners are hobbyist who will never shoot anyone. I say too bad, grow up and get another hobby. The other 1% have screwed it up for you, live with it, cause I send my kid to college to learn, not to be gunned down by some psycho courtesy of the NRA.

Supreme court:
If they do give an unfavorable decision, this would affect the entire bill of rights. For if "right of the people", and "shall not be infringed" are not plain language then that means "abridging the freedom of speech" could be twisted to mean that they can in certain circumstances (hate speech, radical views, etc.) be restricted. I might not agree with your views, but i will fight for your right to say them. How many gun grabbers would fight for our right to speech?

There is only one possible outcome that will not cause a civil war in the event of a Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", our right to own, and wear openly Knives, Firearms, and all other kinds of arms available, shall not be controlled in any way. The gun grabbers have more to lose from a SCOTUS 2nd amendment case than we do.

It saddens me to see people lie about being "hunters for control". Most of these people are lying gun grabbers, who've never touched a gun. How else could they think that the national guard could be considered a Militia? Militia as defined by Websters dictionary; "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.". Thus the national guard being a branch of the Army, can not be a militia as militia is made up of FREE citizens, not paid soldiers.

--------------------------
Joel Stoner
Aldermen/Mayor Pro Tem
City of Macks Creek, MO
Libertarian 2024 Presidential Hopeful

You can't just send a letter to the Supreme Court and ask them to decide. You have to have standing, that means if you haven't been harmed by a law or action they will not hear your case.

You have to have a case, such as the DC case overturning the DC gun ban, before you will even be considered by the Supreme Court. They decide what they will hear, not you.

I voted for the National CC. When guns are again common place items, and people see them being used for something other than gang banging, murder, robbery, rape, car jacking, and violence. When people see firearms used for a benefit rather than a crime views will change.

http://constitutionalamerica.blogspot.com

lordylee

You may need mental help!

"...Doesn't common sense tell you that if everyone was carrying around a handgun there would be a hell of a lot more shootings. Hey you dented my car..bang!..
Hey you insulted my girlfriend, I'm drunk...bang!... My wife won't stop nagging me....bang!"

First 48 states allow concealed carry, (Most, if not all, do not allow alcohol consumption while you carry. You loose your CC permit.)they have not seen an increase in shootings, least of all not "a hell of a lot more shootings." If your answer is shooting everything that bothers you, maybe you should not have firearms near you.

"In the old west everyone carried a pistol, guess what, it was a really dangerous place to live."

Now, this one I don't understand. How old are you anyway, I must assume you where there to make such a claim?

In fact many historians who study the "old west" claim that not as many people carried pistols as carried longguns.

You say you are a hunter, I hope you bow hunt. The people who are trying to deny the ownership and use of handguns are not stopping there! If one type of firearm can be defined and banned, any type of firearm can be defined and banned. That means your shotgun, rifle, single shot, semi-auto, pump, lever-anything can be defined and banned. Your hunting rifle is already under attack, it is too accurate, and shoots to far. Your repeating shotgun holds too many rounds and can fire too fast.

Let alone the fact that many of the gun ban crowd don't give a rats butt if you own a firearm, just don't dare use it on a "defenseless" furry critter! They don't want you to have the right to hunt so they take away your tool to do so.

"True 99% of handgun owners are hobbyist who will never shoot anyone. I say too bad, grow up and get another hobby."

So I suppose you would be in favor of everyone giving up their hunting rights to stop poaching as well?

David-http://constitutionalamerica.blogspot.com

David, thank you so much for explaining how things work to "lordylee". One of the biggest problems that proponents of the 2nd Amendment have is complacent gun owners that just don't get it

Your response was rational, well thought out and free of vitriol - very well said.

I popped over to look at your blog - nice.

You can catch me at
http://peace-through-superior-firepower.blogspot.com/

Mont, if you want, use the "Add Links" function (left sidebar) and add your blog to the blogroll.