9th circuit court at it again

walkersteelhead · 12-09-2002, 05:15 PM

Has anyone see this http://www.registerguard.com/news/20...ault.1207.html

KingFisher85 · 12-09-2002, 05:29 PM

Even more bull.
If they try taking my guns away, bullets first bud.

We can't let them ban all guns in California, cause if they do, what's stopping them from banning them from Washington or Oregon or any other state?

batman · 12-09-2002, 06:09 PM

Give me a break - if your hunting w/an assault rifle something is wrong...... :shocked:

The 2nd amendment speaks to state militias. read it..... The NRA arguement does not wash w/me

i have been a shooter all of my life but we have got to get guns - esp. assault rifles, machines guns, etc, out of the hands of these freakin' criminals, **********s, ******** etc... - esp in the cities. batman

walkersteelhead · 12-09-2002, 06:32 PM

Batman do u really think just cause "assault rifles" are illegal that criminals wont have them. ie doesnt breaking the law make you a criminal. Plus alot of the these anti gunners count varmint guns and any gun with any range an assault rifle. They wont stop there either once they get those guns from us they will keep goin look at Australia perfect example their crime rate has went through the roof since the gun ban. Not trying start an argument just stating my opinion.

Lured In · 12-09-2002, 07:18 PM

Amendment II
"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. " - US Bill of Rights

mi�li�tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
- From websters.com

Batman...take your own advice and not only read, but think.

Re-write the ammendment..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, (BECAUSE) A well regulated Militia, being (IS) necessary to the security of a free State"

A militia would only be necessary to prevent the government and 'professional soldiers' from somehow infringing on a free state. Keep in mind the Bill of Rights is specific to what Congress cannot do and what rights are afforded to INDIVIDUALS.

There is a distinct, albeit fading line between federal law and state law. If a FREE STATE (Currently all 50, althought sometimes I wonder) was subject to issues of political persecution by the federal goverment, INDIVIDUALS are guarenteed the right to KEEP and BEAR arms and to form a militia to fight the federal government if necessary.

History teaches us that when individuals loose their right to defend themselves from the government, the people are no longer free.

While I agree that 'assault weapons' are seemingly out of place in everyday society, I liken them to high end sports cars. Just because you car can do 180 MPH, no one is telling you that you can't own one. You also don't see too many people doing that. Those that do, are usually arrested or handled according to law. Should we outlaw sportscars because they can break the law faster(literally) than other cars?

I am not terribly concerned over assault weapons bans, although they do make me uneasy(the bans). I do; however, have a HUGE problem when someone even suggests that I do not have the right to defend myself from the tyranny of a freedom-squelching government.

I am not intending to be hostile...but you challenged me to read (which I have in the past, am doing currently, and plan to do in the future).

Pan Fry · 12-09-2002, 07:28 PM

grrrrrrrrr,
Don't mess with my rights.
Ps

skein · 12-09-2002, 07:42 PM

Bravo, Lured-In!

You know what they call it when only one side has guns? Genocide.

Skein

Firedog · 12-09-2002, 08:00 PM

They won't ever get mine. All banning guns does is keep law abiding citizens from having guns. It doesnt stop crime. never has never will.

N.R.A.

[ 12-09-2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: firedog ]

eightball · 12-09-2002, 09:38 PM

In the times the constitution was writen there was no standing army. The militia refered to was the farmers and the everyday citizen. Ben Franklin said it like no other.---Those that would give up liberty for security deserve nether security nor liberty. I think all persons convicted of a felony crime with a fire arm should get a mandatory minimum 10 yrs. Then tack on what ever other time for their crimes. The courts are to soft on anyone except law abiding citizens. The laws are already there for sever firearm sentences, They just are not used very often. If all persons convicted of terrorist acts were hung, it might deter a few of them. Redefine terrorism to include these random s*******. Just my .02

montster303 · 12-10-2002, 05:57 AM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (AND) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
I added the (AND) in.....makes it crystal clear to me .

Myles · 12-10-2002, 06:54 AM

England now has the worst crime rate in the world. No guns=higher crime rates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...01/ixhome.html

excerpt:
The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David
Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more
likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than
in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of
the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican
Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime
rates than England and Wales.

I can't believe that anyone with ahlf a brain would buy into gun control!
All you have to do is look at the job we've done with "illegal" drugs. We have a "war on drugs" we spend billions on it. But you can get them anywhere.
myles

Mtn Man · 12-10-2002, 09:19 AM

I see eightball has been reading my sig line :grin:

Lured in is right on the money. We are the militia, if we don't stand up for our rights no one else will.

I think the scariest part in all of this is that up until about 40 years ago the average citizen had as good and as powerfull of weapon as the "Professional" now there is a large gap between what we own and what the military has. If comes right down to it the people will be seriously outgunned.

We cannot allow them to take away our guns....any of our guns. All of the gun rights advocates should be thanking the gun owners and the constitution for even being allowed to voice their opinions.

As has ben proven in several countries now guns don't make criminals they only make the people stronger.

The NRA may not be the best group out there but they are pretty conservative when it comes to gun rights groups. The GOA or the Second Amendment Sisters are much more outspoken. You can go to to the Gun truths web sight for some very good infomation.

Alan

blackdog · 12-10-2002, 09:59 AM

I might be mistaken, but I think this is the same Court of Appeals that recently outlawed the ".....under God" reference in the pledge of allegiance. So this latest effort of theirs shouldn't be too surprising.

Might be a good time to think about renewing or getting an NRA membership.

CARTMAN · 12-10-2002, 10:19 AM

I often hear that GUNS kill people. Wrong it is not the guns. People kill people. If you were to think about it people die everyday as a result of car accidents. I don't see groups sue manufacturers or try to do away with cars. I know it not really the same argument but it show how idiotic some peoples thinking can be. I feel that con control is using both hands and hitting what your aiming at as long as it is legal.

Cartman

walkersteelhead · 12-10-2002, 10:38 AM

Blackdog yea it's the same court,has anyone heard heard the new prez of the NRA is since Heston said he was stepping down due to illness. I think Tom Selleck would be a good canidate.

KingFisher85 · 12-10-2002, 01:48 PM

Guns cause crimes like fly's cause garbage.

A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. :grin:

nerta · 12-10-2002, 03:36 PM

Lured In thanks for saying it so well. I might catch heat from this statement but here goes(Batman I support your right to think what you will, but in my opinion you need to dig your head out. Read the federalist papers written by our forefathers. It might clear the fog in your mind.) As for the 9th court, There must have been a real poor selection of judges to pick from when that group metimorphized from citizens.

riverrat · 12-10-2002, 04:07 PM

taking one gun from an honest law-abiding citizen should not be tolerated....(even though i am not an owner of handguns or assault rifles)....i still think that you have the right to arm yourself, whether it be for sport shooting, collection, or hunting.....this is a very slippery slope when the rights of americans are erroded and politics take over, which will end in gun bans.....this is a scare tactic to get joe citizen on board by scaring him to death, resulting in popular opinions that diminish the rights of americans......

pdxkevin · 12-10-2002, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by montster303:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (AND) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
I added the (AND) in.....makes it crystal clear to me .

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I believe the word Regulated is the one that gets people to think that it means full of rules and regulations. At the time it was written, and still today in military circles, the word, Regulated, refered(s) to clean, and properly functioning, and up to date.

So when you look at it in terms what the words meaning back then, the intent for personal posseion is much clearer.

"A well equipt Militia..."

Now consider that there were regular soldiers and militia. The militia was the average citizens, who when called upon, would come fight for the defense of the State and Country.

"A well equipt group of average citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, (AND) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Sure gets pretty clear when you start to consider what words meant at the time it was written. Just because the meaning of words changes over time does not mean that your Rights also change.

[ 12-10-2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

batman · 12-11-2002, 04:49 AM

well I knew my comments would get a rise out of you guys!

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. " I still think it is clear to me that the amendment speaks to militia assisiting in the defense of the country - just my interpretation OK?
be that as it may, I do strongly believe in our right to own firearms - i like my guns and have had them all my life, my first 30-30 at 12 yrs old (man I loved that rifle).
I have also been on both sides of the barrel, as it were, watched my dad put a guy down that was threatening us in our home when I was 8, good thing he had a weapon - several yrs later I was shot in the upper left chest by an idiot w/a .357.... (ok not gun violence - gun stupidity...keep your gun away from kids guys!). So we are in violent agreement that You and I are responsible gun owners right? We know what we are doing.......

SO, what do we do to keep guns away from those who should not have them???? There have been many posts on here about fools w/guns shooting at brush and killing folks. How do we ensure that these guys do not kill our brothere.dads in the woods next year? And how do we keep them from the criminals? I heard a mention of 10yrs tacked on to prison time - think it would work? What would?
Thanks for the thread guys. And remember it is just a thread..... :smile: batman

12-11-2002, 08:06 AM

You can't "Regulate" ignorance.

What part of "The People" have the freedom of speech? Protection from random search and seizure?

High speed presses and the internet weren't around when the bill of rights was written so they arent covered. Only the government has the right to freedom of the press. A well regulated citizenry being nessasary for the excersize of total government power, the right of the government shall be absolute and unquestioned.

!!!!!!!NOT!!!!!!!

The militia is "THE PEOPLE" NOT the National Guard!
"THE PEOPLE" are the CITIZENS of the United States.
Our hunting guns aren't covered by the Second Amendment.

Sea Nymph · 12-11-2002, 10:07 AM

There's nothing anyone can ever do to totally keep guns away from everyone who should not have them. Banning them would probably make things worse.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens and creating more restricting laws is definately not the answer.

Enforce existing laws would help....

Guns cause shootings like pencils cause bad spelling.

Boedy · 12-11-2002, 03:00 PM

Guns don�t kill people people kill people. You can�t stop a crazy from doing something with any law because they don�t care about the law. Honest people are the ones that will suffer when said crazy walks into their house in the middle of the night and shoots them because they followed the law and didn�t have a gun.

Take a look back 100 years when almost every house in the country had several guns for hunting and protection you didn�t see people walking into schools or up into clock towers killing people in mass. Why is that you think? I think it is the way people where raised back then and the fact that there was a good chance that you wouldn�t make it very far once you started as everyone was armed and knew how to use a gun.

Instead of focusing on guns you should focus on what is causing people to do those types of things with the guns. Think about why kids feel the need to go on a killing spree not what they use to do them with. Isn�t society to blame for not addressing the root causes of the violence in kids and not that they used a gun to do it with instead of something else like a car or a plane?

Kids today are to self centered and take no responsibility for their actions and who can blame them. You can�t even discipline your kids anymore with out being brought up on charges. You think timeouts really teach a child anything other then there are no real consequences to there actions. A good spanking and more time outside interacting with people would teach them more then any timeout would.

As we saw on Sept 11 you don�t need a gun to kill and taking away guns from honest people won�t stop someone that is willing to kill in the first place. Address the cause of the violence before you try and rewrite the constitution to take away honest peoples guns because guns are not the problem.

Sea Nymph · 12-11-2002, 03:08 PM

Gun control advocate may have violated gun laws
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER
New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.

Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."

Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.

Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare.

The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law.

"(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes.

Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts.

Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts.

"Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser."

Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check.

"You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."

Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world.

"We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

Edited by: Coldwater Charters at: 3/23/02 11:38:10 am

fishwhenican · 12-11-2002, 06:37 PM

I support the right to keep and arm bears! OH never mind, there are too many bears already.
:grin: I believe that the correct definition for assault rifle means that the FBI does a background check on you and you pay the $200 or $600 fee for your machine gun. A semi-automatic weapon is NOT an assault weapon!!!

GutshotApe · 12-11-2002, 06:57 PM

fishwhenican - I agree, a semi-auto isn't an assault weapon. But there are some assault weapons out there because every so often when its quiet and no wind I have heard automatic weapons firing off in the distance. I live 3 miles west of Fern Ridge dam and the machine gun fire is a couple of mile west of here. Last January or Feb. I heard machine gun fire SW of Eugene around Gillespie Corners west of Territorial Rd.

Makes you wonder who's doing it. :whazzup:

Lepper · 12-11-2002, 07:10 PM

As stated above.. Inforce the Laws we have!! Then see what happens. Any of you guys know how easy it is to buy a gun even with the so called "back ground" checks?

fishwhenican · 12-11-2002, 07:56 PM

GSA , a friend of mine has a couple of machine guns, but he doesn't shoot out that way. He also usually calls the Sherriffs dept. before he shoots so that they know that they don't need to respond. They are fun to shoot, but I don't "need" one. Just the same I will support the rights of the many legal owners out there. I don't always support the NRA in what they do but they generally do a good job, thats what some of us pay them to do!

12-11-2002, 08:32 PM

The 9 court is the most over ruled court in the country and the only one to be over ruled 9 to 0, TWICE!

TOO MANY CALIFORNIA JUDGES ON THIS COURT!

GutshotApe · 12-11-2002, 08:40 PM

There you go again, bashing the poor Californians!

12-11-2002, 08:56 PM

:shocked:

Clackman · 12-11-2002, 09:45 PM

the seond amendment is part of the checks and balance system. many times i think the sporting firearms stuff get in the way the people need to be a check of our goverment wich as proven many times is thru superior power.

TheRogue · 12-11-2002, 11:41 PM

I remember an interview with a Clinton administration official talking about the Brady Bill. He quoted something like "the instant background check has stopped 10,000 convicted felons from buying guns". The interviewer then stated, well, it is a felony for a convicted felon to attempt to buy a gun, is it not?? The official replied, yes. The interviewer then asked "How many of these people who are committing federal offense felonies have been arrested and charged with a felony?? Nothing but silence, the question was asked again, and the reply was finally something like "well, none, but the important thing is that they didn't get to purchase one".

Enforce existing gun laws, don't add more; there's too many already. Make it criminal to own a gun, and only criminals will have guns.

I detest the almost blind arrogance of the NRA at times, and I disagreed with their stance on not regulating certain types of arms. I can't imagine why anyone in the world would want an assualt rifle, an UZI, or a .50 cal BMG.....but I can't imagine why anyone would buy a Humvee, or a 5,000sq ft house for a childless couple, either. I understand the NRA stance now....start banning one type, and pretty soon there are more to come.

TR

Merle · 12-12-2002, 03:55 PM

Batman,
I hunt with a so called assault rifle. I hunt varmints, coyotes and other critters with an AK-47 in 223 cal., lots of fun too. This is just a point of information not a flame. If you are hunting with a bolt gun, it is a descendant of what was considered at the turn of the previous century as an assault rifle (the newly adopted military bolt action rifle) When they start taking law abiding citizens guns away that is when this country is in trouble. this is what an Astralian cop has to say about the situation down under,Tuesday, December 03, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Austrialian gun control
From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's to late!

ORoutdoorsman · 01-12-2004, 04:27 PM

Batman, other than being able to identify whether someone is or a sound mental state, and whether or not they are a criminal is the only way to determin whether or not they are fit to own a gun. Period. There is no test, and there is no trait that would dictate whether or not a person is suitable to own a firearm. You can't attempt to determin whether someone is a detrement to themselves, or to others by owning a gun, more so than you can a knife, or a chain saw. Further regulations on firearms weakens the rights of law abiding citizens, and has no bearing what so ever on criminal getting guns, because they are not suppose to have them anyways! Making it harder, or impossible for you and I to get guns does not change anything for a criminal. The new rules wont apply to them because they already are not suppose to posess firearms. And anyone who says that banning guns in the united states will slow a criminal down from getting them is living in a dream world. Drugs, illegal prostitution, child pornography, and a host of other "goods and services" are illegal in the united states, but are easily attainable by any person, in almost any city in the country. An illegal gun is no different, and would be no different if they outlawed guns. All outlawing guns would do is leave you and I defenseless to criminals and to our government. If we are able to try and pawn off our right to bear arms, a right so precious, and so important to our survival as a country, that we made it the second guaranteed right, the importance only surpassed by our right to freedom of speech, then our united states constitution no longer has any meaning. Because if the second most important right guaranteed to us by the people who founded this country, is no longer important, what makes any of the other rights important either?
Trying to regulate firearms will not prevent firearms accidents. Accidents can happen to anyone. You can do everything to be safe, and accidents are still possible. Car accidents. You can be driving down the road, you blow a tire, or you hit a large rock that has rolled into the road, and you are thrown off the road just enough to strike and kill an innocent bicyclist in the bike lane. Does this now mean that we need to outlaw cars. Or say I fell off the bank while I was fishing today and drowned to death. Does that mean we should put more restrictions on bank fishing? Perhaps it should become the law that you have to bank fish with a minimum of four people, after you have been properly evaluated by a doctor and psychiatrist to ensure you all are fit to be out fishing. You must all wear a primary flotation device, a back up flotation device, and you must all be certified EMT's and have a full supply of first aid gear including everything from bandages to blood plasma. Otherwise, it is too risky to go fishing. While this seems silly, it is the same as trying to put more restrictions on gun rights to avoid accidents. Adults have a responsibility in their life to be as safe and responsible as they can be. Thats why adults are differentiated from children. Once you are an adult, if society has succeeded, you are capable of conducting yourself in a safe manor, and are responsible enough to be trusted with your own life, and trusted you will do everything in your power not to harm others. Putting restrictions on anything will not eliminate accidents. And outlawing guns will not solve the crime problem in the united states.

[ 01-12-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: ORoutdoorsman ]

Catching Nemo · 01-12-2004, 07:53 PM

1. Individual Rights (firearms or fill in the blank)

2. Individual Responsibility

3. Individual Accountability

Taking away or limiting #1 does nothing to solve the problems that are a result of 2 and 3.

Or to put it another way... "Guns cause crimes like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat".

We live in a democracy or more accurately a republic and there are many inherent risks in doing so. Solutions are not always quick nor effective because we place the highest value on the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A reality of those 3 ideals includes the "opportunity" for another individual to infringe upon them.

As for hunting with an "assault rifle" many people hunt for deer with a SKS which uses a round that has ballistics close to the 30/30. AR15's are used for varmiting or used to shoot competitively in CMP/DCM competitions. You may not understand why they "need" their "assault rifles" and conversely (and most unfortunately) they do not understand why you need to hunt or fish. After all - what about all the maimed and abandoned animals that are left by irresponsible hunters. Not to mention all the accidental shootings while hunting.......... at least you are not hurting anyone or anything while shooting at paper......

Sportsman collectively need to wake up and understand that they are all interrelated and interdependent upon their rights to do those things which they enjoy. If they wish to pass on that legacy to their children then they need to quick pushing away the hunters, paper punchers, plinkers, Class III collectors, concealed carry users, etc. and embrace them as brothers in a common cause and way of life.

Molon Labe

6wapiti6 · 01-12-2004, 11:09 PM

This topic needs to be brought back to the top! Here's another link to read what is going on.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/colums/arms.htm

Matt

Salmon Hot Shot · 01-12-2004, 11:24 PM

Like the saying go's. Guns dont kill people,people kill people. It doesnt matter what they ban, they will find another gun to do the job. They need to have stiffer jail times for people who use guns in crimes.

2LEYS · 01-13-2004, 07:33 PM

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Spotted Owl · 01-14-2004, 06:44 AM

How do I get the entire article. Seems that the link does not give the entire read on this subject. Maybe we are all getting up in ARMS about an issue that has already been taken care of. Also were else can you find more info on this article. The AP does not archive this perticular article.

I for one would like to find out as much as possible on this issue before I get totally enraged. As it stands from what I have seen on this thread I am very close to seeing red. But there is just not enough information here to justify any problems since the article is dated
12-7-2002 that is a long time ago.

I do fully support the 2nd amendment. But we also have to have all of the info from neutral sources if at all possible. I also support the NRA but they tend to jump whole hog on issues that don't seem to warrent all of the drama that they like to put out.

If this is a factual problem this is another reason to get firearms owners to put out their own honest and pertinent information. Talk to everyone you can and inform them that if this does happen that is just the begining.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

I am willing to bet that firearms owners are the minority in this situation. If infact we are the minority we have to be a very LOUD and VOCAL and ACCURATE minority.

ORoutdoorsman · 01-14-2004, 11:11 PM

SLed-while the NRA does often go full bore on issues that seem minor, it is a good thing that they do. Because if they don't, then our guns right are slowly chipped away at. And once a bill has been passed or a decision has been rendered in court, that is a basis anti gunners can use to build on to further restrict gun usage and gun owners. So while it may be silly, it is safer not to let even a little bit of our rights go, because it will just lead to more.

Spotted Owl · 01-15-2004, 12:35 PM

OR

I agree that we should be very watchfull of our rights. I hope that I didn't send out the wrong idea. I just think that before we all get upset over an issue we need to be informed. This issue may have already been taken care of 12-07-2002 is quite a while ago.

I am the last person that wants to see any of our rights diminished no matter how small and insignificant we are told the loss will be. Because as you said if the anti people find a foot hold no matter how small they will use it and do what ever it takes to make it bigger until they get what they want.

Just the idea that they are trying to take our rights is reason enough to get upset. I still belive that information is the key in any situation like this. I was looking for the rest of the article because it seemed to leave us hanging. We cannot fight back with everything we have if we do not have everything we can get to arm ourselves. In this case reading and research will get us what we need to be able to fight back.

As I said before I belive we are the minority as gun advocates in this ring. With that we need to fight back very ACCURATELY, VOCALLY, LOUDLY,and HONESTLY. Another thing if you don't already you need to get out and VOTE. If you do not vote you cannot honestly stand beside those of us who do.If you do not vote you hinder more than help because that makes us even more of a minority, and we are going to need all the support we can get.

6wapiti6 · 01-15-2004, 02:24 PM

I've been following this a bit and here is what I've heard so far. There is a second ammendment rights group either in Seattle or Bellingham? They are trying to get the 9th circuits decision appealed to the Supreme Court. This could be good or bad. Thier decision would then be "Law of the Land". The big problem that I see is that the supreme court is made up of quite a few of the Clinton appointed judges, the ones that Bush has proposed have been shot down by the Democrats. While I can't imagine that they would follow the 9th, it is a scary proposition that it has even gotton this far. My inforamtion is second hand and may not ne totally accurate, so if anyone else has better info. please let us know. Just because it's not been talked about does not mean it's been taken care of. We all need to keep on top of this and do everything that we can to preserve our rights.