Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun Ownership Difficult Despite Rulings By High Court

February 27, 2012 by  

Gun Ownership Difficult Despite Rulings By High Court

In 2008, following a court case that challenged the restrictive gun laws in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court ordered local government officials to make it possible for law-abiding residents to own a gun, Fox News reported.

According to the news outlet, this ruling was a landmark 2nd Amendment win for guns rights advocates, but there has been growing disagreement among local residents about whether the decision made a difference.

Emily Miller, a senior opinion editor at The Washington Times and also a victim of a crime, decided to get a gun following the High Court's decision. She encountered many problems and in the end it took her five months and cost $500, plus the price of the firearm.

"These gun control measures are so counterproductive because they are not stopping the criminals from getting guns," Miller said. "They are stopping the law-abiding people from getting guns to protect themselves."

According to her article in the Times, Miller noted that there is a 22-page handgun restriction packet that is provided by the District of Columbia, but this information contains only three bullet points for guidance on legal transport of the firearm. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun Ownership Difficult Despite Rulings By High Court”

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.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • tim

    Once again if the politicians get control, that is what it will take for anyone to buy a gun… Friggin lawyers and thier double talk and not a single one of them has ever shot a gun!!

    • Robert Smith

      But of course, tim…

      There are those who are more than willing to give birth control denial to the government, and have the government control abortion.

      Do you want the government in or out?

      I want the government OUT of gun control (except as it relates to criminals and crazies) and out of trying to define who can and can’t have an abortion.

      I also want the government out of the prohibition business.

      Rob

      • Jeep

        Using a backword argument to support your cause is as transparent as it is fallacious. To infer that not supporting the administrations plan to provide “free” birth control is somehow asking for govt to get involved is simply inane. Noone is swayed by your illogical conclusion.

        The free exercise of the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is a “function” of govt. “Free” birth control is not free, guaranteed nor is it an acceptable govt function.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        <blockquote?I want the government OUT of gun control (except as it relates to criminals and crazies) and out of trying to define who can and can’t have an abortion.

        Keeping and bearing arms is a natural right and power to defend life.
        Abortion is a violation of the child’s natural right to life.

        That you try to make them comparable is all to typical of progressive rationalization.

        I also want the government out of the prohibition business.

        So do you want government to stop prohibiting murder? Is that what you want? Do you really want government to stop prohibiting theft, robbery, rape, …. etc?

        Perhaps if you did not try to make possession of a thing (gun) and murder (abortion) comparable we could establish some agreement.

      • Vicki

        Trying again with correct blockquote. Wish they had a preview. :) (Moderator feel free to delete the previous post)

        Robert Smith says:

        I want the government OUT of gun control (except as it relates to criminals and crazies) and out of trying to define who can and can’t have an abortion.

        Keeping and bearing arms is a natural right and power to defend life.
        Abortion is a violation of the child’s natural right to life.

        That you try to make them comparable is all to typical of progressive rationalization.

        I also want the government out of the prohibition business.

        So do you want government to stop prohibiting murder? Is that what you want? Do you really want government to stop prohibiting theft, robbery, rape, …. etc?

        Perhaps if you did not try to make possession of a thing (gun) and murder (abortion) comparable we could establish some agreement.

    • Rocky Night

      I would say how I feel about gun control but since they passed the NDAA I no longer have free speech.

      Keep America free.

    • Joe H

      tim,
      What you say is most definately TRUE! After todays shooting at chardon highschool, the anti-gun advocates will be out in record numbers in Ohio!! Just because some idiot left his weapon where a kid could get ahold of it, they will come thundering out yelling that guns kill!! Well I’ve got news for them. I have guns and only I have access to them and I will never let ant kid get a hand on mine!! With all that said, I will have to suffer the consequences of that azzhole’s lack of common sense!! BTW, I have had guns all my life, whether long guns or pistols and the only one that harmed anyone was the one that Uncle Sam issued me in Nam!!

  • http://comcast Lee Bird -Veteran USMC

    The issue of more gun control is never brought up by Obama as he knows that the issue would destroy him for re-election. There is even limited discussion on the gun runner Eric Holder who provided guns ( Fast & Furious ) to the cartels which have been used againest our American people. Lets face it !!!!!!! even if Obama knew nothing about it he still should have taken Holder out of office. Every time you hear of a shooting on along the Mexican border by the cartels, think of Holder being guilty of taking an American life. This is just like drugs, the provider is just as guilty as the person behind the gun !!!!!! We must clean house in Washington and have individuals in office who protect the people and let us protect ourselfs with the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

    • CJ

      Exactly. Every Vet knows their commander can be relieved of command for actions of their officers. Holder’s position should not be any different, and the President’s under HIGH scrutiny for neglect to insure this wouldn’t happen. Simper-Fi Marine.

    • Searcher

      Obama can’t get rid of Holder, or Holder will blow the whistle on Obama being complicit in the whole fiasco. It was a failed plan to show the need for more gun control. A sneaky backdoor attempt that was bungled, as so much has been by this administration.

  • FreedomFighter

    Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsOo9ykzoko

    My wife as many other women are now doing, is planning on obtaining Concealed Carry this summer. She feels the world is getting more dangerous and she does not want to be a victum.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • http://gravatar.com/jaymatney jaymatney

      For those in the Missouri and Kansas Area, I am a Firearms Instructor who teaches many various classes to include Mo. CCW, KS CCH, Advanced Pistol, Tactical Pistol, And several diferent types of beginers courses. I have been instructing Military and Law Enforcement for 11yrs. And I will discount the cost if you advise that you found me here.

      Please check the site at http://www.thinlineshooting.com

    • Sirian

      FF,
      We got our CCL’s about three years back and my wife is packing all the time. . . :) Let me assure you, your wife will feel so much more secure once she is doing the same.

    • 45caliber

      FF:

      I was told by an old western gunfighter to NEVER get in an argument with an armed woman. He taught us to shoot by pointing the gun as you would your finger. He said that any hysterical woman points instinctively and is the most accurate shot in the world. (We never could get him to tell us if this was personal experience or not.) From what I’ve seen in papers, he’s right. Over half the time when a criminal is shot and killed, it’s by a frightened woman when he breaks in on her.

  • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

    Guns is the only strong hold of a free America.. Keep up the good work…

  • DavidL

    If you need a concealed carry permit for work safety, then get one. If you want it for home safety, don’t. Get a bat, seek refuge in your locked bedroom, call police, and call out to the intruder that you have called the police, have a gun, and if they enter your bedroom they will be shot. Although I am not a member, this is current advice from the NRA.

    If you have a concealed carry permit, you are now open to increased legal liability. First, the alcohol percentage standards for DWI are lower for permit holders. A conviction is now easier. Second, if you shoot someone, even in the face of an obvious self defense situation, you are going to be sued by either the surviving criminal or his or her family.

    Of What will they accuse you? If you have hollow point or anything other than factory made ammo (no re-loads) they are going to accuse you of intent as the ammo, they will argue, shows premeditation. If you used full metal jacket ammo out of a factory box and the round not only went through the intruder but also the wall of your home and struck an innocent bystander, then the possibility of a third party suing you now exists.

    I repeat, if you need a concealed handgun permit for safety on the job, then qualify and obtain one. If you do not, get a bat.

    • captain mike

      I am an NRA member and I don’t think I ever heard them recommend not having a GUN. Other rthan that, I wouldn’t argue too much with your home defense scenario. If you tell somebody you have a gun you oughta by God have one. AS far as the Carry permit advice, most jurisdictions do not require a caryy permit for posession in the home or under most conditions in a vehicle, only to carry concealed in public. If you truly want only home possesion, you can skip that. Of course, the bat is still a good idea.
      As far as ammo, hollow-points are not defacto evidence of malicious intent, THey are standard police issue in most jusisdictions. But you are right to stick with factory standard ammo – just tell’em “i use what the cops use”.

    • http://gravatar.com/jaymatney jaymatney

      Sir as a Life Member and NRA Certified instructor I would like you to be better informed before you post comments. Yes the NRA recomends that you gather your family into a safe area, but never to grab just a bat (that would open them up for civil liability when some one was injured because of this, as it will open you up if some one follows your advice and gets hurt). Also there is no state in the union that has stiffer limits on CCW holders that I know of. I have practiced Law Enforcement in Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and I am a Kansas CCHL instructor. The Legal Liability is the same if you hit an intruder with a bat or a .357 slug. you will open your self up for civil and criminal liability so make sure that you are using only the force necessary to end the threat. In MOST states Self Defense is a ultimate defense, but the burdan of proving self defense is on you.

      PLEASE DO NOT POST LEAGLE ADVICE IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

    • http://gravatar.com/oldnyfirefighter OldNYFirefighter

      That is not quite true, as many States have laws that stop a criminals or their relatives from suing if the criminal was in fact in the act of committing a crime against the shooter. Many States allow self defense if you are in fear for your life & many others have a Castle Doctrine which is also allows you to protect yourself. You can sue anyone for anything today, but laws to protect you from bogus suits are already in effect in a majority of States. I go by the old saying, “I”d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six”. Frivolous law suits are being dismissed on a regular basis now, as your right to life is given by God, not Congress, Judges or Lawyers.

    • Bruce

      One last thought regarding your legal scenario of excessive force , … you can buy and load your handgun with pistol shot ( of the gun caliber you have , they now make shot for most calibers ). Load these into the first 2-3 chambers with the remaining chambers loaded with lead for final stopping force . Pistol shot is less force , plenty deterring , wider spreading ( for the hasty, less accurate moments ) , and non penetrating through to outside of walls ! LOAD UP !

    • Joe H

      DavidL,
      THAT’S BULL!!! I get the NRA magazine every month and they have a section every month that tells of people that were armed and able to defend themselves in their home! EVERY MONTH! Anybody that says they advise you not to have a loaded gun ready when you are at home is full of it!!

  • http://yahoo mark

    Someone who is an otherwise lawabiding citizen in D.C. needs to make a stand. You should not need to have to read through 22 pages of legalize to be able to protect yourself. Just get the gun without going through the big hoops and make them arrest you for exercising your rights. The Morans in charge of D.C. obviously need to be slapped down in court a few more times.

  • TulsaJudoka

    DavidL
    That’s about the stupidest advise I’ve ever heard. A baseball bat, get real dude. Do you think a baseball bat would have helped that 19 year-old mother and her 3 month old baby in OK against two 200LB+ males breaking into her house? Or the boy who killed one of three intruders to protect his 16 year sister? Here in OK we have the “Make my day law”. It protects homeowners who shoot and kill intruders and prevents them or their families from suing. Hollow points are made so that they don’t go through the intruder into the wall or anyone behind him. They stay inside him.
    I’m a 61 year old woman, having been carjacked once, I now have my carry conceal and take it with me consistantly, especially at night. I also train in martial arts so even without my gun, I can take care of myself. I’d advise you to get a brain or try to use the one you should already have.

    • Sirian

      TulsaJudoka,
      HA, you said it clear as clear can be. . . :) Isn’t it funny that we Okies seem to have a higher concentration of common sense than so many others?
      Wonder how that’s possible???. . . :)

    • Jeep

      Additionally, there are plenty of manufactorers producing “home defense” ammunition. These rounds are designed to maintain knock down power without going through walls. Hollow points are made to splinter when they make contact with soft sufraces, they are not designed to decrease penetration. Just remember the the “escalation of force” rules when integrating your defence.

  • G.J.Bart

    Arm yourself heavily and learn how to use them proficiently. You will need to protect yourself and your family in the near future. You cannot depend on law enforcement many are already beginning to side with the enemy and terrorists. Learn who they are and pass the information to those you can trust. Learn who the enemies of our constitution are. Learn who wants to take over our government. Learn who wants to change our laws to favor there beliefs. Remember, arm yourself heavily and learn how to use them proficiently. When you use a weapon life may change as you know it.

  • Charlie

    Who the heck do these local dolts writing rules and/or laws that do not comply to the U.S.A.orginal document………the one that all are sworn to uphold before they take office…..the one that is the backbone of our country………. the one that many have died to uphold……the one that should always be respected no matter what the year ………. the one that all who would like to dostroy this country try to discount as an old and not relavant to modern times document( these are the real dolts) ………………..the document is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA ‘s CONSTITUTION .
    It is unreal that people that swear to uphold the beleives of their country and uphold then uphold believes of other countries. We have rights and the rights we have are in our Constitution. DON’T TREAD ON IT…….RESPECT IT…………

  • Charlie

    Made a tying mistake ………..(dostroy) actually is distroy

    • Christin

      Charlie,

      That’s ‘destroy’… but that’s okay we all make typing and spelling errors.

      My older son has BIG mitts, too… he is a drummer, but taking piano lessons with his younger brother who has slim piano hands!

      Who are these ‘dolts’ who don’t adhere to our original constition (misspell on purpose)??? They are the traitors and sell outs to satan and his NWO.

      Keep us the Good fight patriot.

  • Charlie

    Have large fingers and mistakes happen when I try to type on a laptop computer . Therefore don’t try to redirect my remark to something else simply because of my trying to use a laptop and having problems with it

    • Joe H

      Charlie,
      the lady wasn’t trying to redirect anything, she was just being neighborly, calm down, dude!!

  • Federalist-Republican

    If these Federal “laws” are legal, why are they codified under “interstate commerce”?
    The answer, of course, is that they are not legal. The Second Amendment is a Constitutional guarantee of a God-given right (reference the Declaration of Independence). That these are God-given rights, no government has the authority to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, except that authority be ursurped. While some citizens disagree, consider if and when the various levels of government regulates the press, the Church, and any assembly, habeas corpus, &c.

    The “militia” argument will not stand, either; the “National Guard” is a 20th Century invention of the Federal Government…these are reserve Regulars, and not militia. Militia are assigned officers by the States, and come and go as they please, cannot be deployed over seas, &c. Militia are the entire people, not what the current system propagates. The Second Amendment was ratified in order to protect the Citizen from the dangers of a standing army in the hands of a tyrant or despotic government – it has nothing to do with “sporting purposes” (again, a 20th Century invention – pay it no mind, as it has no legal authority; the 1968 Gun Control Act could never stand in a truely Constitution-enforcing Court).

    • James

      The Second Amendment was supposed to be an absolute bar against federal infringment of our right to bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held a D.C. ordinance, which banned possession of a handgun, violative of the Second Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has no police power to enforce its decisions.

  • Roger

    I live in California, land of fruits and nuts. Open carry now illegal and getting a CCW almost impossible. I have made up my mind to carry loaded and concealed anyhow. If I had to shoot somebody, I’ve decide to make sure they’re dead and leave them where they drop. No calling police so they can prosecute me.

    • 45caliber

      Sadly between the illegals and the citizens who are being stifled by the laws, people are doing just that. I don’t know what the percentage of people leaving the scene of an accident is, but there are a lot doing it. And I suspect that many of the murders, etc. are the same way.

      In fact, about four days ago I saw an article in the local paper about two men robbing another of $400,000. They were caught by accident in North Carolina in a traffic problem. The robbed person hadn’t reported the theft. Want to guess why?

    • cawun cents

      I’d much ruther be an living outlaw,than a dead law abiding citizen.
      But that is my own humble opine.
      I too am a Californian caught in the net of deciding betwixt personal safety(which I do not see authorities as providing)and living under the laws of my community(which I do not necessarily agree with for starters).
      Legislators think they can legislate my protection.
      I disagree.
      I am sure they believe that their laws will perform as they intended them to.
      I am and always have been skeptical in that regard.
      So I do what I can to protect me and mine.
      Hopefully it is enough.
      Sadly I do not think it will always be so.
      Eventually there will be desparation in the populace,necessitating a commitment to use whatever force is available to quell an uprising.
      I will meet that challenge when it issues forth,with extreme predjudice.
      Cheers!
      -CC.

      • 45caliber

        cc:

        A Federal court (I believe the SCOTUS) ruled that the government is NOT required to provide protection and neither is the police. The police can witness an attack on you but are not required to stop it. They are instead supposed to arrest the lawbreaker AFTER the attack.

        Several prosecutors have made the same point. One, in NYC, stated that it was worse for a husband to protect his wife from a lawbreaker by shooting him the leg than it was for the lawbreaker to attempt rape and murder. “After all, we would have caught the lawbreaker and punished him. Attempting to take the law into his (the husband’s) own hands is vigilanteism and must be stopped!

    • Bill

      F..kin A right

  • http://N/A Ray Miskell

    The opening line of the Preamble of the Constitution begins with “We the people—”
    There is also an “Equil Protection clause”.Both of wich are ignored as backup or our Second Ammendment RIGHT to Keep and Bare arms !
    My Question is Who are THE People ? And where is the Equel Protection when a ordinary citizen is shot and killed in the commision of a crime; and the Criminal after being convicted of said crime only gets 25 to Life, with possability of parol; and if the same crime resolted in a police officer beingshot and killed the Mnditory Sentence is the DEATH Penalty.

    • 45caliber

      Ray: Only those politicians in charge are THE People. And only they can have equal protections. The rest of us are prisoners of war.

  • 45caliber

    This isn’t a surprise. The politicians don’t like to be told that they are wrong and the laws they are passing are illegal. So if some court – even if it is the SCOTUS – tells them they can’t do something, they will change it slightly to get the same result with the idea that sooner or later the citizens will either give up or run out of money to take it to court. They don’t have to worry about that as they are using your money in the first place.

  • Frank

    Whoever posted the photo knows very little about guns. A 50 cal pistol with a bunch of 9mm bullets? Anyways I’m voting for Ron Paul for president, and so should anyone else who cares about the 2nd Amendment, the economy, foreign policy, etc…

    • http://google gary gerke

      I understand why you would vote for Paul, however, a vote for Paul is the same as voting for Obama……he has no chance!

      • 45caliber

        gary:

        Keep saying that. You might even convince yourself sooner or later.

      • Joe H

        gary,
        He won’t have a chance if enough people think SCARED like you!! Is the sky falling, also chicken little??

  • http://google gary gerke

    The high court has ruled period, they can make it dificult in some states, however, vacation in gun friendly states and buy whatyou will. F-em!!

    • James

      Gary, the Heller decision had no affect whatsoever within the States, it only applied to federal territories, like D.C. The only State law that has ever been held violative of the right to bear arms, was in Illinois (McDonald v. Chicago), but like D.C., Chicago simply set about to make acquisition of a handgun more difficult with more regulations. Incidentally, the Illinois constitution contains a restrictive clause nearly identical with the Second Amendment, the Chicago ordinance violated their State Constitution. However most Americans don’t seem to know their State has a constitution.

  • Stan Smith

    If Libtard PC out of control in Canada! It will happen here in the US if the Libs get their way!
    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/25/arrested-dad-wants-answers-after-daughter-draws-gun-pic

    • 45caliber

      I saw that too. And I was surprised to see it DIDN’T happen here! It is something I’d expect to see happen in places like Califoria or New England.

  • Paul Fuller

    I, too, live in California. Luckily, I live in one of the rural counties where it is still possible to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Of course, the legislature is controlled by the big city democrats and they keep trying to take our guns away. And if they can’t take our guns away, they keep making it more difficult to buy ammunition.

  • Raggs

    oblama just wants to make damm sure that his gestapo are the only ones that have a lawfull right to protect and defend… But they do not protect a damm thing and they sure cannot defend either ( well maybe after the fact )… When someone pulls a gun on me I’m not going to call 911 until after he is dead.

    • comstock

      I think Pres.Obama is probably a capitalist but I do believe we should have a right to bear arms in this country and to be a responsible gun owner.

  • Gregory Romeu

    It’s more like the, “law-abiding citizens” have been sitting on their complacent, pompous and apathetic butts and not yanking their elected elitists out of office that is causing their demise.

  • The Paineful Truth

    There are two (2) scenarios to understand when dealing with the why and how of gun regulations . First , regulation / control over that which is “Public”, which they “claim” is their perogative to have authority over for protecting the rights of others ; and second , “Judicious” use of force . The force used must not “exceed” that absolutely necessary to negate an opposing force , given reasonable interpretation of that opposing force ie. deadly threat or not , because theft does’nt warrant death , hence only when your life is threatened , or others you’re protecting , justifies a fatal shooting ( their gun control reasoning , not mine because I include “property” substantial enough to cause serious / severe hardship as defensible also ) ; Now , as regards what is “Public” area I suggest a reading in “Black’s” Law dictionary for the meaning of the various usages of the word “Public” . Note how it referrences five (5) subtle distinctions on it’s usage . 1) Public ( Gov’t ) places / bldgs / activities / personnel ( exclusive use and control over ) , 2) Quasi-Gov’t “private” entites serving as an “Agent” / “Agency” of Gov’t ( Utility Corps , Contractors , Independent “Assets” , entities that do the “work” of the Gov’t as a non “Official” entity / in a non “Official” capacity , 3) Public ( non Gov’t ) places activities , Bldgs , Structures provided for use by / with public funds ( fewer issues and less control ) , 4) Private places , entities , activities , structures provided / open to the general public for use , such as Commercial Bldgs ( even less control and even fewer issues to control ) , 5) the Public in general ( all the people as a whole / Society ) and places held in common not controlled . Then there is “Private” Only places , property , structures , usage , control , according to the “Consent” of the Owner or his agent . Now reread the various Gov’t regulations with these variations in mind , Note the graduating levels of “Control” by Gov’t over these (5) five areas of what is “Public” . They reduce to no control at the “Private” level , with the exception of “exigent” circumstance ( “First hand witness” , by Law enforcement , of a Crime / Criminal activity upon or thereafter leading onto “Private” property , or “Warrant” , based on Sworn testimony of Probable cause ) . Notice that there are fewer issues to control / be controlled and less control over issues as you progress away from Gov’t on throught to “Private” . The learning / understanding of these subtleties / their distinctions goes a long way toward understanding the correct relationship of Lawfully correct interpretation and application of the law . I believe that most of the times the Law is incorrectly applied / interpreted is because of the misunderstandings of these subtle shades of Jurisdiction / Authority . Government often “Overreaches” its “Jurisdiction” and “Exceedes” its “Authority” in its “services” to the “Public” . In general it has Authority / Force from the most to the least in this order when providing its “services” to the “Public” ; the most in regard to Gov’t ( Bldgs , places , activities etc. ) , then Quasi-Gov’t “private” entities serving as “Agents” / “Agencies” of the gov’t , then “Public” ( non Gov’t ) places , activities , structures , Bldgs , etc. provided for use by / with public funds , then “Public” ( open to the public ) places provided by the “Private” sector , then “Public” places , activities , issues , structures in general as a whole ( Society ) , and finally the least control over “Private” property / use / places / activities . Our Society , and it’s Constitutional “Services” , is based on Subtleties necessary when trying to address all the issues / concerns of a Civilization whose “Social Compact” is based on a Hybrid Construct of the Highest and Best Ideals learned / gleaned from history and its Greatest thinkers / philosophies in promoting and perpetuating the most Freedom and Liberty in the World . We must learn of these so we can stand against corruptions of our Freedom and Liberties .

  • Speak2Truth

    “to make it possible for law-abiding residents to own a gun”??

    The Constitution says “shall not be infringed”, not “shall be made possible for some people with many restrictions, permits, taxes and delays”.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means that The People have a Right that Government cannot interfere with, in any way, with the reasonable exception that applies to all Rights – if you abuse it you lose it.

    • James

      If you are referring to the Second Amendment, that restriction only applies to the federal government.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.