Gun Magazine Fires Editor For Column Promoting 2nd Amendment ‘Regulation’

0 Shares
gunsammo1107

Guns & Ammo magazine has fired contributing editor Dick Metcalf following a controversial column  in its December issue in which he attempts a comparison between government regulation of firearms to other “Constitutional” limitations like licensing drivers and arresting people who kill in the name of religion.

Metcalf’s column — which ran under the headline “Do certain firearms regulations really constitute infringement?” — argues that “all Constitutional rights are regulated” and goes on to deliver an eighth-grade civics lesson (you can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater; you can’t sacrifice people in religious ceremonies) before comparing government regulation of 2nd Amendment rights to restrictions on licensed drivers:

I also received bags of mail every year, much of it from readers who were upset that I advocated the passage of additional state concealed carry laws. These readers typically argued (I’m paraphrasing) the “The Second Amendment is all the authority we need to carry anywhere we want to” or “The government doesn’t have the right to tell me whether I’m qualified to carry a gun.” I wondered whether those same people believed that just anybody should be able to buy a vehicle and take it out on public roadways without any kind of driver’s training, test or license.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same. I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly. And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms.

I’ve seen too many examples of unsafe behavior on too many shooting ranges to believe otherwise.

Guns & Ammo fired Metcalf Thursday, issuing a statement and an unequivocal apology to readers whose views of the 2nd Amendment evidently don’t come with Metcalf’s caveats. Editor Jim Bequette wrote:

As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s “Backstop” column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning “Guns & Ammo”’s commitment to the Second Amendment. I understand why.

Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers such as Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and a voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.”

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, “Guns & Ammo”’s. It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with “Guns & Ammo” has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.

Read the statement in its entirety here.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • antiliberal00

    Unfortunately, too many people have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into Dick Metcalf’s way of thinking and that is very dangerous for our liberties and our republic.

  • dan

    …that’s why I have ceased supporting the NRA .’ Those who would compromise Liberty for the sake of safety,deserve neither.’

    • Frank Staples

      Hey dan, the NRA teaches gun safety to approximately one million people a year…how many gun safety lessons are taught by all the gun control groups and police departments combined?? You want gun safety? Support the NRA. As a Life Member I constantly monitor what the NRA says…I want no infringements.

      • dan

        i hear you …and I supported them for MANY years, but then I’m a recovering Republican,too,lol. The problem comes when leadership goes all wobbley and starts compromising on legislation (with the best of intentions) when the 2nd Amendment says it all. I’ll still go to the wall for the members…and I still appreciate the programs…
        but , like the GOP (good old progressives,sigh) there comes a time when you have to stand for the Constitution or die by legislation one usurptive bill at a time.

        • Frank Staples

          Ain’t that the truth?? If our elected conservatives were actually conservatives we might get somewhere. And obumma is fighting hard behind the scenes to do away with more of our gun rights.

  • Robbie

    What did Dick Metcalf expect? Freedom of Speech?!?

    • Vis Fac

      Speaking in a public forum is the reason we have our first amendment. However when you have a contractual arrangement with a PRIVATE concern ( a magazine) you have certain guidelines to follow

      Robbie Metcalf was supposedly a representative for Guns and Ammo who was hired to PROMOTE his employers product not destroy the product. In short Metcalf breached his contractual obligations .

      Since Bequette’s duty is first and foremost being responsible for content the onus was to provide appropriate damage control. A magazines subscriptions are it’s lifeline it was prudent the editor take quick and decisive action.

      To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

      You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • Robbie

        I guess you don’t mind reading a propaganda rag where even the slightest divergence from the party line can not be tolerated. In any case I was encouraged by this report which showed that even a normally NRA type can see the light. Good for Metcalf – a brave (and thinking) patriot.

        • Vis Fac

          Apparently you don’t mined the liberal propaganda issued by the new GOP (Gullible Omnipotent Progressives) either do you?

          To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

          You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est
          Semper-Fi

          • Robbie

            We were not discussing some liberal media source. We were discussing Guns and Ammo magazine. In any case liberal media usually present opposing views on subjects. Also, what’s all this Marines stuff you repeat over and over again in your postings?

          • Vis Fac

            We are discussing a Liberal position taken by a supposed conservative.

            If you are so interested in all “this Marine stuff” I repeat it might be a god idea if you conducted a little research on your own regarding this “Marine Stuff”

            You obviously don’t have the “Stuff” that Marines are made of so you wouldn’t know. One little hint for you.

            Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying “some people wonder all their lives wanting to know if they made a difference- The marines don’t have that problem.”
            The rest I’ll leave to your own devices!!

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Robbie

            There are many ways of “making a difference”. But it seems like you certainly have the right stuff. Wasn’t there a movie about that?

          • Vis Fac

            Robbie:Being a “legal” immigrant I have striven to be as patriotic as I can I have never missed the opportunity I had to vote I support out veterans and troops whenever possible ans do what I can for the community. I also support groups that fight for our rights either by my time of endowment.

            I am a doer I just don’t sit on my butt and do nothing. I am very opinionated and am not afraid to speak my mind. This to me is being able to back up what you believe FYI the Movie The Right Stuff was about America’s Astronauts

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Robbie

            Semper ubi, sub ubi.

          • Vis Fac

            Well Robbie you certainly have demonstrated that you have a sophistication lever second to none. Perhaps YOUR underwear are so tight you have developed a case of cerebral necrosis

            To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

            You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est
            Semper-Fi

          • Robbie

            You betcha’. Golly gosh dernit.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Liberal media usually presents opposing views?
            Have you been smoking crack, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Yes.

            No.

            I watch CNBC and CNN and Fox a lot. The first two will usually have a Republican spokesperson on which or after a Dem. On Fox they interview almost exclusively Republicans and such like. I also found it interesting that Fox barely covered the recent Dem victory in Virginia plus they always rely on far right wing polls for their election predictions. That largely accounts for their shock and disbelief when democrats win an election. It’s very interesting making these observations.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Still caught in the Democrat/Republican paradigm, eh Robbie?
            There’s just no teaching some folks.

            Which network is most biased?
            http://newsbusters.org/polls/which-network-most-biased-22286
            Here’s another:
            http://www.mediaite.com/online/biased-frivolous-and-liberal-poll-shows-most-americans-still-distrust-the-media/

      • vicki

        Robbie writes:

        “I guess you don’t mind reading a propaganda rag where even the slightest divergence from the party line can not be tolerated.”

        No we don’t mind at all. We even have a name for them. MSM.

    • vicki

      Dick Has many avenues to speak his mind. There are hundreds of liberal magazines and he can even start his own.

      • Robbie

        You are totally correct about that. But what I was pointing out was that a dumb gun mag has no tolerance for differing views even from one of their own.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Yeah right, Robbie, like you Liberal Progressives value Freedom of Speech other than your own:
          http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hr-347-cutting-foundational-fabric
          http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-signs-end-to-free-speech/

          • Robbie

            Actually we do. But the real point of the current topic is that a dumb gun and ammo mag has no tolerance for differing views even when it comes from one of their own. This is very revealing although not surprising to those of us who are enlightened.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            If you’re “enlightened”, Robbie, I’m downright brilliant.

          • Robbie

            Focus on the topic.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Oh please, Robbie. I find your ignorant repetitive illogical comments to be very boring, so I must find other ways to entertain myself.

          • Robbie

            Did you find the topic boring? Or was it impossible for you to defend the fact that some dumb gun and ammo rag is unable to tolerate any difference of opinion even from one of its own writers?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I don’t need to defend anything. It is a private company and they can hire and fire whoever they want regardless of my opinion.
            How can you so vociferously attack a company for their employment decisions, and then turn around and take other people’s money callously while thinking you are a benefactor? I think there must be a loose nut on your keyboard.

  • Bob Archibald

    Only one Freedom is allowed in this country — and it is not Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from unreasonable search and search, the Freedom of a speedy trial, the Freedom of a jury trial, the Freedom of not being murdered by our government, the Freedom of ……..

    Obama is worst then JR — who would have thought that 6 years ago.

    • Robbie

      Your government is murdering people? What on earth are you talking about?

      • TheOriginalDaveH
        • Robbie

          The claim was that Americans are being murdered by the government and in America? Any proof of that?!?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Sure:
            http://www.cato.org/raidmap
            http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa395.pdf
            http://mises.org/daily/216
            “Randy Weaver was not the Unabomber. He had been charged by the BATF with possession of illegal guns whose barrels were slightly too short. He lived with his wife and family in the mountains. On August 21, 1992, three federal agents ambushed Weaver’s 14-year old son, Sammy, and a family friend named Kevin Harris. One government agent shot the boy’s dog, and when the boyfired back, a fire-fight ensued in which Agent Degan was killed. Sammy Weaver left the scene and while running back toward his home, another government agent shot him in the back and killed him.
            The next day, FBI snipers arrived, having received the official rules of engagement that declared that, “any armed male adult observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin could and should be killed.”
            Within an hour of the snipers’ taking position, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded, though they had offered no resistance whatsoever. FBI sniper Lon Horiughi shot Randy Weaver in the back as he stood outside his shack and then fired the head shot that killed his wife, Vickie Weaver, as she stood in the cabin door holding their 10-month old baby.
            The Justice Department and FBI launched a massive coverup and even destroyed critical documents which were detrimental to the government.
            Seven months after Ruby Ridge, the BATF was scheduled for its budget hearings before Congress on March 10, 1993. A command decision was apparently made to have a sensational, successful event prior to that budget hearing in order to increase the budget for the next year. This fact is the key to the whole Waco event”.

            But one would think, Robbie, that the fact our Government is killing people overseas who aren’t even under their jurisdiction would be enough to give you a clue about what their potential is.

  • Vis Fac

    Too bad our politicians aren’t as forthcoming or as responsible!!!

    To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the wolf, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

    You don’t have to be a Marine to make a difference the only requirement is being truly patriotic and the willingness to back it up!!!

    Libertas inaestimabilis res est
    Semper-Fi

  • Brad Nelson

    Blown out of proportion by fanatics. Nice job. Now we as gun owners
    and enthusiasts and CCW holders appear to be fighting against each
    other. If the editor didn’t read the article before he allowed it to be
    published, he’s not doing his job. Now he’s playing CYA hoping he’s
    not the next out the door. The published comments which da_n the
    article unfortunately show 2nd amendment supporters coming across as
    people I would be uncomfortable around when they were armed. The gun
    control groups must be in hysterics over this. They do all they can to
    portray gun owners as barely educated backwoods guys with a jug of
    moonshine in the truck, and with a hair-trigger temper.

    • vicki

      “The published comments which da_n the
      article unfortunately show 2nd amendment supporters coming across as
      people I would be uncomfortable around when they were armed.”

      And yet the more than ~100 million of them that own guns have still not shot anyone. Ever. No good reason to feel uncomfortable around them.

      • Brad Nelson

        To the anonymous Jeff and Vicki – It’s the language and tone of the comments of some that I have an issue with. I would like to see Dick Metcalf explain what he thought he was trying to say.

        Locally I’m involved with a group that had a vocal CCW permit holder run his mouth about being armed to the point that the group leaders passed a resolution banning firearms on its property or at any of its functions.

        I’ve been a shooter, re-loader, and NRA member most of my life. I’ve shot in various forms of handgun competition over the years. I have been able to bring some who had been anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment over to our side using dignified reasoning.

        I doubt that either of you will be able to move any gun control people to the gun rights side as I have done. When’s the last time you bought anything from a belligerent salesperson?

        • vicki

          “I doubt that either of you will be able to move any gun control people to the gun rights side as I have done.”

          Keep up the good work then. You only have millions of liberals to go.

        • JeffH

          Brad, it’s great that you have been a pro-active gun advocate, shooter and NRA member and I applaud you for that.

          I still disagree with your initial comment and I know this additional comment, ” “I doubt that either of you will be able to move any gun control people to the gun rights side as I have done.” is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

          I too am an active shooter for 50+ years, California Rifle & Pistol Association, GOA and NRA member, pro-active gun rights advocate and have educated quite a few former anti-gun people thru intelligent reasoning and hands on training to remove the fear that some people have of gun owners and guns and at least sway them into pro-gun ownership people even though they still will not buy or own a gun.

          I am also aware of, and extremely senitive to, the whole perception by some of the 2nd Amendment and the responsibilities that come with gun ownership and take that into account each and everyday that I may interact with those that show or may have fear or been indoctrinated by the anti-gun rhetoric of politicians, media, and anti-gun groups.

          It appears that YOU seem to be the one interested in starting the infighting with your fellow gun-rights advocates as evidenced by your 2 comments and a few responses to your comments.

    • JeffH

      Brad says “Blown out of proportion by fanatics. Nice job. Now we as gun owners and enthusiasts and CCW holders appear to be fighting against each other.”

      Well Brad, you have a rather odd view of the whole deal. The name of the magazine is “Guns and Ammo” and NO, “gun owners and enthusiasts and CCW holders” do not appear to be fighting against each other.

      Sorry Brad…They’re fighting for the 2nd Amendment, not against themselves, and we’ve been in that fight for decades. Do you not think for one minute that the anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment advocates, lobbyists and legisators will not take advantage of his gaffe?

      The editor got what he deserved and he should have known better than to allow it to appear in the pages of Guns and Ammo magazine. The editor was held accountable for his actions and was responsible for that “mistake”.

      Sorry pal, but It is you I could not trust, with or without a gun.

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

      ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

      Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

      STOP IT

      STOP IT NOW

    • JeffH

      Brad says “Blown out of proportion by fanatics. Nice job. Now we as gun owners and enthusiasts and CCW holders appear to be fighting against each other.”

      Well Brad, you have a rather odd view of the whole deal. The name of the magazine is “Guns and Ammo” and NO, “gun owners and enthusiasts and CCW holders” do not appear to be fighting against each other.

      Sorry Brad…They’re fighting for the 2nd Amendment, not against themselves, and we’ve been in that fight for decades. Do you not think for one minute that the anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment advocates, lobbyists and legisators will not take advantage of his gaffe?

      The editor got what he deserved and he should have known better than to allow it to appear in the pages of Guns and Ammo magazine. The editor was held accountable for his actions and was responsible for that “mistake”.

      Sorry pal, but It is you I could not trust, with or without a gun.

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

      ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

      Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

      STOP IT

      STOP IT NOW

  • vicki

    Metcalf (from the op) writes:

    I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the
    Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

    It most certainly IS a right. Protected under the 9th amendment and under the concept of your private property and what you do with it. And the basic principle is exactly the same. If you harm others using your private property you will be punished.

    I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

    Of course not. The right to keep and bear arms is not the right to USE them IRRESPONSIBLY. Just as in the driving case above, using arms irresponsibly is ALREADY illegal and was so from the beginning.

    And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms.

    That is because Metcalf is still confused over the definition of “is”

    For the rest of use we know well the definitions of shall, not, be (is) infringed. Requiring people to get government approved training to exercise an enumerated right IS infringement.

    Just for amusement lets require adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of voting and see how you (and progressives) wail.

    I’ve seen too many examples of unsafe behavior on too many shooting ranges to believe otherwise.

    In spite of all Metcalf’s examples of unsafe behavior

    ~300 MILLION Americans never shot ANYONE. Not even by accident.

    Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a VERY VERY few.

    Stop it
    Stop it NOW.

  • Bryan Simmons

    The 2A should be “un-infringed” by all levels of government. Anyone using such a poor analogy as the shouting fire in a theater really shouldn’t be writing for a national publication. Infringement of the 2nd is akin to banning someone because they have the capability of shouting fire in a theater. Rights should remain untouched until the time they infringe upon another person’s rights.

    • vicki

      And it is physically impossible for my possessing or carrying a firearm (or other arms) to infringe upon ANY other person’s rights.

      • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

        As long as you do not damage someone else, you are absolutely correct. And damaging an aggressor is NOT damaging their rights. NO ONE has the right to aggress against another. Oh except for the vaunted men in blue.

        • vicki

          This is critically important to clarify as the misuse of the language by gun-hating people has muddied the discussion from the beginning.
          .
          It is physically impossible for my owning or carrying a firearm to infringe upon ANY other person’s rights EVER.

          NO caviots. No weasel words. No exceptions. It is just NOT possible.

          Your point is understood but that is what the gun grabbers try to use to defeat the clear statement that is the 2nd amendment.

          ALWAYS point out that possession and carrying of ANY tool can not infringe upon ANY other person’s rights. EVER. This plus pointing out that even when using firearms

          ~300 MILLION Americans have NEVER shot anyone. Not even by accident will defeat their arguments.

          Tell the gun grabbers to

          STOP punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a very very few
          Stop it
          Stop it NOW

          P.S. NO ONE has the right to INITIATE aggression against another. Not even the men in blue.

    • Frank Staples

      That’s one of the smartest comments on the gun issue that I’ve read in years. You’ve hit it on the head. The anti’s have waged a better war than we have, aided and abetted by Republicans who were not on our side and Demorats who would do away with the 2nd. When we say “enforce the laws already on the books” we’re being stupid…have you seen some of the laws “already on the books”?? We need to do away with MOST of the gun laws to get back to a reasonable starting point. And just think, we’ve still got three years of the liar in chief to weather!!

  • Adrien Nash

    Metcalf made an asinine comparison of carrying a weapon with driving a car when it should only be compared to owning a car and not driving one. The government can regulate driving a car but not owning one just as it can regulate firing a weapon in public but owning or carrying one, especially an unloaded one. Stupid and inappropriate comparisons lead to illogical conclusions that the stupid person is blind to because he is too lazy to actually think about what he pontificates on.

    • vicki

      Agreed. Possession of a car/gun and not the use of a car/gun.

    • Robert Messmer

      But the government does regulate owning a car not just the driving of one. The government requires cars to be registered rather driven or not and I am pretty sure they wouldn’t allow that six year old to be the legal owner of a car.

      • vicki

        The government requires cars to be registered rather driven or not

        False.

        “In most states, certain types of vehicles need not be registered including “off-highway” vehicles, stored vehicles, or vehicles for which a “non-operating” has been filed with the state department of motor vehicles”
        http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-tickets/driving-without-valid-vehicle-registration.html

        I am pretty sure they wouldn’t allow that six year old to be the legal owner of a car.

        False.

        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_legal_age_to_own_a_car_in_Illinois

        • Robert Messmer

          OK so some states do and the requirement for a “non-operating” status is a registration.

          • vicki

            If you look more closely that “non-operating” status is ENDING registration. Any vehicle that is not driven on public roads does NOT have a requirement that it be registered.

          • Robert Messmer

            If you decide to place a non-operational status on your vehicle, you must do so on or before your vehicle’s registration expiration date.

            NOTE: You must pay the Planned Non- Operation (PNO) fee on or before an OHV’s biennial registration expiration date or the non-operational status option is forfeited. Full registration fees and penalties would be due.

            The renewal notice has a box designated for you to check that indicates you want the non-operational status marked on your vehicle’s record. The planned non-operation (PNO) fee must be sent to the DMV with the bottom portion of the renewal notice on which you have checked the planned non-operation box.

            You are required to pay a fee (tax) and tell the state where the vehicle is–sure sounds like a registration to me.

          • vicki

            You are focusing on the wrong end. All that non-operation is for when you take the vehicle OFF registration.

            My point was and is that you are NOT required to register a vehicle that you are NOT going to use on the public roads.

            You are only required to register it before you actually do.

          • Robert Messmer

            You are missing the point, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, call it a duck. Since you have to fill out a form, tell the state where the vehicle is going to be stored and pay a tax to do it–then that is a registration. Just like no matter what you call it–a fine, a fee, a penalty, a license–money collected by a government is a TAX.

          • vicki

            There is a point being missed here. And you are clearly missing it.

            Step one. Buy a vehicle
            Step two. Drive it to your hearts content on PRIVATE property.

            Done.

            No registration. No de registration (Planned non-operation)

          • Robert Messmer

            You are given two options by that state: Option 1 do the paperwork, pay the tax, and register it for the road.

            Option 2 do the paperwork, pay the tax, and register it for non operation.

          • vicki

            Proof by bald assertion. And I already provided evidence that your claim is false.

  • Old Wolf

    Unfortunately the government would never go for the reasonable ‘regulation’ that would allow the full exercise of the right.
    Punish those who use firearms in violent criminal acts with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I.e. murder in the first or second degree, rape, robbery, etc. They have the full authority to do so at the state level, and then are only targeting those engaged in crime.

    Then no licenses or questions are needed about firearms on the street. If you’re engaged in a criminal act, the other party has the full authority to stop you by any means necessary, and to haul whatever’s left before the police, and if needed, to face the grand jury to make sure the defense was justified.