Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Federal Judge Overturns UnConstitutional Maryland Handgun Law

March 7, 2012 by  

Federal Judge Overturns UnConstitutional Maryland Handgun Law

A Federal judge ruled that residents of the State needn’t provide a “good and substantial reason” in order to legally obtain a handgun permit, because the 2nd Amendment is substantial enough.

The case began when Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002, but could not renew it in 2009 because he could not show officials he had been subject to “threats occurring beyond his residence.” After repealing and being rejected by the review board, which found he hadn’t demonstrated a “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun as a reasonable precaution, Woollard filed suit in 2010.

In his ruling on the case, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg said that placing the burden of providing a reason why they need a gun on gun owners was unConstitutional.

The judge said in his opinion:

A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered reasonably adapted to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland‘s goal of minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Federal Judge Overturns UnConstitutional Maryland Handgun Law”

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

  • Vicki

    I still want to know why we have to have a permit to exercise a right. I wonder how the left would react to having to get a permit to carry a pen.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1296407888 Teddy Lancaster

      You need a permit so they know WHO has the guns. I have my guns, but I prefer having my Malinois by my side. Saves the trouble and cost of buying ammo.

    • http://gravatar.com/jcfromdc JCfromDC

      A permit to exercise a right??? What a concept! How about the bimbo at Georgetown U? By the same token, she should need to renew a permit for contraceptives, because she can’t say “no” often enough to keep from getting pregnant? But I’m just being silly… am I?

      • Vigilant

        “A permit to exercise a right??? ” Yes, you are being silly.

        The judge ruled correctly regarding the narrow portion of the law when he said, “A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered reasonably adapted to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be.”

        He did NOT rule, nor would any sane judge in the US rule, that permit laws categorically are unconstitutional, as you would seem to imply. He merely ruled “that placing the burden of providing a reason why they need a gun on gun owners was unConstitutional.”

        You have a right to own a gun. You do not have a right to sell guns to children, felons or the insane, among other parties. Those children, felons or the insane do not have a right to own a gun. Society in general has a reasonable expectation, and has passed laws to the effect, that permits and licenses are required to ensure safe operation/handling of certain things, including guns, automobiles, explosives, retail food, airplanes, etc.

        I’ll agree that regulation and the attendant fees/taxation are way out of hand, but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        …..children, felons or the insane do not have a right to own a gun.

        Checking the 2nd amendment finds no age ref. Felons are in prison so who cares. Their incarceration is both their punishment and the control to keep them from harming society with guns. Those who are not sane enough to posses a gun are not sane enough to be out of a mental hospital.

        Society in general has a reasonable expectation, and has passed laws to the effect, that permits and licenses are required to ensure safe operation/handling of certain things, including guns…..

        Despite the clear statement “…shall NOT be INFRINGED.” in the 2nd amendment.

        It is really to bad we can’t require a permit to ensure that every voter is educated and literate before we allow them to handle a vote. More damage has been done to this society by uneducated and or illiterate voters than by people unsafely handling guns.

        Oh and we should study the damage caused by the “free MSM press” sometime.

      • Joe H

        Vig,
        I gotta agree with Vicki here! Why should I have to obtain a permit to own a gun??? Here in Ohio we DO have to go through a background check and get a permit ti CARRY, but we don’t have to have a permit to OWN. I don’t even like the background check. All that is for is to create a list of owners. After seven years in service, I probably have more experience with weapons than most third year cops out there. I have also kept current throughout the years as well.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        “A permit to exercise a right??? ” Yes, you are being silly.

        Am I? Lets see. I have the right to keep and bear arms ( that would mean POSSESS and CARRY arms). Yet I must go to the state and get a permit to do this.

        Looks like “….A permit to exercise a right??? ” is a statement of fact. Is it common for people to consider factual statements “silly”?

    • Christin

      Vicki,

      Permit = Tax

      (take your wealth – money for Big Gov) = Big Brother knows who is doing what

      Permits are required for:
      *Marriage
      *Fishing from -US Fish and Wild Life
      *Hunting from – US Fish and Wild Life
      *Driver’s Permit
      *Building
      *Business
      *Boating
      *enjoy a day at a State Park
      *Import, export, making and selling of Alcohol
      *Import, export, growing and selling of Tobacco
      *Import, export, manufacturing and selling of Firearms and Ammunition
      *Firearm permit
      *Clean Air permit
      *Over-sized and Overload permit on highways
      *Burn Permit in TN to burn a leaf pile 8′ by 8′
      *Commercial Fishing from (NOAA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin and (MMPA) Marine Mammal Protection Act to conduct activities that may result in the ‘taking’ of a protected species
      *Permits for Protected Species from (APPS)
      *High Seas Fishing Permit
      *Groundfish Federal Fisheries permits for Northwest Region
      *Antarctic Marine Living Resource Trade Permits (CDS) Catch Documentation Scheme
      *Mining and Drilling from (MMS) Minerals and Management Service
      *eWells Permits for Drilling in Gulf of Mexico
      *

      We are ‘Permitted, Licensed and Excise Taxed’… TO DEATH wouldn’t you say.

      These are but a few I found researching on BING, but their are more… each state has their own.

      • http://gravatar.com/jcfromdc JCfromDC

        And yet we kicked out the British Crown for overburdening us with too may repressive/progressive/recessive taxes? What would Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Henry, Adams, Franklin and Hancock say about all this today?

      • Christin

        JC from DC,

        They’s probably say…

        You LOST your way… What are you waiting for… STAND firm and fight for your Rights or lose them again… and if you don’t you are yellow bellies… say your prays while you can…
        cause their isn’t any new world for you to go to to practice the Freedoms you wish….

        And then a wary sigh of sadness from Benjamin Franklin who said, “a Republic if you can keep it.”

    • hedy

      that is ob `s thing , ob likes to take ouer friedom , guns , and every think hi can think of ,
      ob likes to take america all the way down to the ground , he likes to be like chaves, a dictator , if we are not careful , he wil accomplish that,it is so sad thatsome americans , just following that thug like sheep, some one other then ob , starded out , whit words , and reerick, that was hitler
      think , and be carefull of ob, lier , and treator, comitted treason,shreding the costitution , becouse hi dont like america, what in the hell is hi duing in the USA , OB OUT NOW

    • ROLF P

      Good point, in the Movie ? Good Fellows, Pesci used a Pen as weapon, if my recollection serves me right that definitely played a great part in killing the guy. Also pens are often used in Prisons by inmates as weapons. Solution a CCPP Carry Concealed Pen Permit, Ca will probably have on the books by June 1, 2012.

      • Joe H

        ROLF P,
        Don’t laugh. you are not allowed to carry an umbrella with a sharp point in London England NOW!!

    • James

      Vicki, Because some Americans have lost their right to bear arms because of criminal conduct, the States must first determine whether one is so restricted.

      • Vicki

        Their right to self defense comes from their Creator and not from the state.

        We place them in jail to deprive them of liberty. This rather deprives them of access to other things like voting and (some) tools of self defense. Convicts have, for years, demonstrated the ability to create tools of self defense even in prison. Unfortunately the tools are rather more often used for offense which is exactly why the other inmates need to be able to defend themselves.

      • Joe H

        James,
        They already do a background check! They don’t need a permit to OWN as well!!!

      • James

        Vicki, Convicted felons have the right to defend themselves, like everyone else, but most states deny them the right to bear firearms.

      • Vicki

        James says:

        Vicki, Convicted felons have the right to defend themselves, like everyone else, but most states deny them the right to bear firearms.

        No biggie. That is how many states treat all their slaves.

      • James

        Viicki, Do you believe Charles Manson, the Columbine killers and other mass murderers should still have the right to bear arms?

      • Vicki

        James says:

        Viicki, Do you believe Charles Manson, the Columbine killers and other mass murderers should still have the right to bear arms?

        Begs the question. Did you let them out of prison? If so, knowing that they would not honor a silly possession law, if they kill again upon who’s hands should be the blood.

    • http://AWD SKIP

      As has been said, an unarmed citizen is a “SUBJECT” and if we allow the loss of the 2nd amendment, all the others will fall by the wayside as citizens would have no way to defend them. Like I heard in court once,a man on trial being charged with murder and then asked to swear to tell the truth!!!! said, after that “thou shalt not kill is broken, the others just seem less important”

  • 45caliber

    Good for the judge. It’s nice to see a judge get it right once in awhile. And I’m sure the libs in Maryland are now trying to come up with a new law that will make it even harder for a citizen to be able to get a permit.

  • LAB

    So sick of these commie bastards….I say no more secret service coverage for these dirty rats! See how they like being UNARMED!

  • PCW

    Literal interpretation of the Second Ammendment would yield the permit itself as unconstitutional because the words are “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. requiring a permit at all is most definitely an infringement!! This is a move of a Marxist government to disarm the peasants so that their agenda may be forced.

    • Christin

      PCW,

      Agreed!

    • Mike

      AMEN Brother… Not getting my GUNs anytime soon while alive because it’s an “Infrigement” for sure.

    • Vigilant

      “Literal interpretation of the Second Ammendment would yield the permit itself as unconstitutional because the words are “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

      Please be advised that restrictions, or infringements, have been placed on many Constitutional privileges. I don’t think we have the right to cry “fire” in crowded theater (1st Amendment) any more than we should we allow children or insane people to have guns.

      Limited, but prudent restrictions are a fact of life. Without them we’d have anarchy. I’m sure the Founders would agree.

      • Christin

        Vigilant,

        This is so true…

      • Had_to_be_said

        I think your very explanations clearly demonstrates exactly why your position is such ignorant hogwash… if not an, outright, intentional-deception. “Constitutional privileges”..? The Bill of -RIGHTS- in the U.S. Constitution, does not protect “privileges”… PERIOD. a “privilege” is granted and can be taken away. A “right” is just that. It is pre-existing, and ever present, and is not subject to -any- arbitrary “infringement”.

        And, by the way, further ignorance on your part is also very clearly demonstrated by your (???…intentional..???) misuse of the”…shouting fire in a theater” deception. This is a classic rhetorical-misdirection. Actually, yes… a free citizen most certainly -can- “shout, fire, in a theater”… if they believe there truly is a fire. The actual quote (which is very much the point that you seem to be, quite intentionally, missing) is that someone cannot “…falsely …shout fire in a theater” (and thereby, fraudulently, invoke panic that will probably cause injury). The action itself (exercising free speech to announce a “fire”), most certainly is -not- prohibited, and should not be, in any “free society”. Being able to confer “unpopular” or alarming information, or opinions, to the “public” -is- after all, the overriding cornerstone of “Free Speech” and “individual liberty”. However, this particular intentional mis-statement (lie) -is- very frequently used by those trying to rationalize the unethical imposition of restrictions on the inherent “rights”, and “liberties” of others… much like the numerous, deceptive, abusive imposition of, so-called, “reasonable restrictions” on the individual-citizen’s 2nd Amendment -right- to “keep and bear arms”.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        Please be advised that restrictions, or infringements, have been placed on many Constitutional privileges.

        We are however talking about CREATOR given RIGHTS and not some governmental privileges.

        Since the Constitution was written as a set of limitations on government any privileges it extends would be to government agents and not limitations to the RIGHTS of sovereign citizens.

      • Vigilant

        Vicki, we’ve gone through this before.

        We have no differences regarding your passionate defense of Natural Rights. However, we differ substantially on the status of those rights when it comes to the very heart of the reasons why governments and their laws are established in the first place.

        Man in a state of nature has the fundamental right of self-preservation, or as Locke said, men are free “to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.”

        “Unfortunately, but precisely because everyone is, in practice, entitled to do anything, the state of nature comes to be indistinguishable from the state of war, where, in Hobbes’ familiar phrase, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

        In nature, “everyone is entitled to punish offenders… and even to kill them. No wonder life in the state of nature becomes unendurable…and the rights prove to be insecure in the state of nature.”

        The Declaration tells us that these rights are secured by instituting governments, admittedly artifacts of man’s making and not God-made. “Free government cannot be instituted if men insist on retaining their natural rights to govern themselves; that right has to be surrendered. Each man must consent to be governed, which, as Hobbes puts it, he does when he lays down his natural right to govern himself.”

        “In Locke’s version, civil society is formed when everyone ‘has quitted his natural power [to punish offenders]., and resigned it up into the hands of the community’. Paradoxically, security for rights requires the surrender of certain rights; they are surrendered into the hands of civil society.” (Walter Berns, “Taking the Constitution Seriously”).

        Now you and Had_to_be_said may believe that man in a state of nature is preferable to the laws of government, and that is your right, but you must then deny the very foundations of our Republic and the Constitution itself, which by its very nature is a document of government.

        You are also denying the Enlightenment philosophy upon which the Declaration of Independence was based. Please understand here that you are not arguing against just my personal perspective; you are debating with the Founders themselves, as well as the body of knowledge they brought to bear from their well-researched experience of history.

        As for the ”wild west” analogy, that was indeed poorly chosen, but it’s a diversion to split hairs over it. The point was clear: anarchy would ensue if every person insisted on full exercise of their natural rights.

        And Had_to_be_said, a little civilty in your tone and less derision will make for a more intelligent conversation.

      • Vigilant

        And you may believe, which I do not, that even Ron Paul would advocate repeal of all restrictons on gun ownership via background checks. Moreover, it’s ludicrous to imagine Dr. Paul supporting ownership of firearms by children..

      • John Russell

        The rights enumerated in the constitution are not grants from the government, that is to say privileges Furthermore no gun law has ever benefited the public. Every one of them has either been a reflection fear on the part of the ruling elites or a means of keeping a less favored portion of the population helpless i.e. Jim Crow laws.

      • Vigilant

        Vicki and Mr. Russell,

        You may want to live in a world without gun laws, but 95% of the American people don’t.

        When the army of Mr. Soros, or any rich man shows up on your front lawn with tanks and loaded RPG launchers, you just might change your mind and wish for those laws to be reinstated.

        When children lie dead in a schoolyard because of a shootout, and one of them is yours, will you champion their natural right to own guns, or will you wish that the law had been in existence that “infringed” upon their rights? Will you sleep better at night secure in the knowledge that in your world MANY more children, wackos and criminals have guns than they do now?

        How many lives have been spared because some wacko on furlough from the funny farm was denied a gun after a background check? Or perhaps some irate husband cools off during the waiting period and decides that his hasty decision to wack his wife might be, after all, ill-advised?

        Are there too many gun laws and restrictions? Yes, I would agree that is a fact. Should there be NO gun laws and restrictions? Never would I or any reasonable person subscribe to that position.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        You may want to live in a world without gun laws, but 95% of the American people don’t.

        They (and you) are in luck. The whole world awaits. Most every other country in the world has strict gun laws. Perhaps they should move rather than restricting ours.

        When the army of Mr. Soros, or any rich man shows up on your front lawn with tanks and loaded RPG launchers, you just might change your mind and wish for those laws to be reinstated.

        Silly straw man argument.

        1. Mr Soros already has that army and with the NDAA 2012 (if you believe the stories about Soros) can do so thru his minion the POTUS.

        2. If the gun laws restricting MY possession of anti-tank grenades and launchers did not exist I would be able to resist such a force. In fact Mr Soros’s army wouldn’t be on my front lawn cause they would have reason to fear both me and all the other armed citizens around me.

        Alas since we are law abiding we have become subjects or slaves to people like Soros who (supposedly) control vast armies.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        When children lie dead in a schoolyard because of a shootout, and one of them is yours, will you champion their natural right to own guns, or will you wish that the law had been in existence that “infringed” upon their rights?

        Let us reverse the scenario and ask one of our children what she thought about being disarmed (Note this happened to and adult child and not in a schoolyard but I expect people to be able to extrapolate)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8

        Will you sleep better at night secure in the knowledge that in your world MANY more children, wackos and criminals have guns than they do now?

        Many more children would have a working knowledge of firearms and firearms safety. Prohibiting children from these things only causes children to experiment in hiding from adult supervision.

        Wackos and Criminals have just as many guns now as they would in a world with fewer gun “control” laws cause they don’t obey the laws NOW.

        How many lives have been spared because some wacko on furlough from the funny farm was denied a gun after a background check?

        None. The wacko simply buys a gun from the black market or uses a bat. The real question is how many lives have been spared because a law abiding citizen DID have a gun. We know a place where several lives were lost because a law abiding citizen obeyed the law and did NOT have their gun. (See link above)

        Or perhaps some irate husband cools off during the waiting period and decides that his hasty decision to wack his wife might be, after all, ill-advised?

        How many wives were murdered by the husband who didn’t change is mind and the wife didn’t have a gun cause she started her waiting period AFTER he started his.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        Are there too many gun laws and restrictions? Yes, I would agree that is a fact. Should there be NO gun laws and restrictions? Never would I or any reasonable person subscribe to that position.

        Since we are in agreement the only real question is what is a “reasonable” restriction. Alas the 2nd amendment doesn’t happen to have anything about reasonable or restriction other than to say there shall be NONE.

        Now let us for just a moment consider what might be reasonable.

        In a truly free society laws against possession can NEVER be reasonable. Laws against misuse will ALWAYS be reasonable.

        Thus we only have to deal with what is “misuse” and what is “possession.” I Bet we can disagree on that for hours :)

      • Vigilant

        I said, “You may want to live in a world without gun laws, but 95% of the American people don’t.”

        Vicki says, “They (and you) are in luck. The whole world awaits. Most every other country in the world has strict gun laws. Perhaps they should move rather than restricting ours.”

        Kindly read my words again. I said, “Are there too many gun laws and restrictions? Yes, I would agree that is a fact. Should there be NO gun laws and restrictions? Never would I or any reasonable person subscribe to that position.”

        Understand we are talking about three things: (1) no gun laws, (2) reasonable and limited restrictions on gun ownership, and (3) strict gun laws which keep guns out of everyone’s hands.

        It’s clear you opt for the first, I opt for the second. I own firearms myself and I am planning on buying more. I do not begrudge the Federal Firearms Licensed shop for the necessity to have checks made as to whether I have a criminal record or a history of mental problems, or that I’m old enough to have a weapon. You apparently think it’s unfair.

        And please address my questions, which I’ll repeat for your benefit:

        “When children lie dead in a schoolyard because of a shootout, and one of them is yours, will you champion their natural right to own guns, or will you wish that the law had been in existence that “infringed” upon their rights? Will you sleep better at night secure in the knowledge that in your world MANY more children, wackos and criminals have guns than they do now?”

        “Mr Soros already has that army…” Oh really? Perhaps you’d care to source that delarative statement, if you expect it to have legitimacy. Otherwise, you are only conjecturing.

        While you’re at it, you might dispute the wisdom of the Founders as I outlined elsewhere. I’m truly interested in your reply.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        The point was clear: anarchy would ensue if every person insisted on full exercise of their natural rights.

        As DaveH has pointed out before Anarchy does NOT equal chaos.

        Which natural right do you claim will cause anarchy to ensue and why do you think anarchy is bad? As DaveH has pointed out before anarchy does NOT equal chaos. Perhaps you meant to say that chaos would ensue.

      • Vigilant

        “In a truly free society laws against possession can NEVER be reasonable.”

        Absolutely true. You’re beginning to get it.

        We are not, nor have we ever been, a “truly free” society. That society you speak of is a society where Natural Law reigns supreme, every person is for himself and there is no law and order. In short that is a life where society itself doesn’t exist.

        That’s precisely why we instituted a government and that’s why we have a Constitution.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        Understand we are talking about three things: (1) no gun laws, (2) reasonable and limited restrictions on gun ownership, and (3) strict gun laws which keep guns out of everyone’s hands.

        Thank you for the clarification of your position. Though you did make an unintentional error in your choices (I think it was unintentional)

        1. No laws restricting the ownership of guns. (2nd Amendment of US Constitution)
        2. reasonable and limited restrictions on the ownership of guns.
        3. strict limitations on the ownership of guns.

        Being that I am essentially a constitutional conservative type person then OF COURSE I will choose 1.

        Now what you really should consider is that though I do not believe in restricting gun ownership I DO think there should be SOME LAWS governing gun use. They closely match the laws governing bat use and hammer use and knife use and golf club use etc. They all involve dealing with the use of a tool to force your will upon an non-consenting person. Oh and those same laws govern the use of fists. :)

        I trust that my point is clear. Laws against possession are wrong and prima facie unconstitutional. Laws against misuse already exist as they are not dependent upon the tool but upon the action and intent of the actor. Such laws are clearly the intent of why governments are instituted amongst men.

      • Vigilant

        “Which natural right do you claim will cause anarchy to ensue and why do you think anarchy is bad? As DaveH has pointed out before anarchy does NOT equal chaos. Perhaps you meant to say that chaos would ensue.”

        WHICH Natural Right? I’m talking about the whole body of Natural Rights, aren’t you?

        As to why I think anarchy is bad, that’s about as self-evident as anything I can think of. That you would even pose that question makes me begin to doubt your seriousness. You obviously didn’t read my quotes and analysis regarding John Locke, Hobbes and the Founders. If you did read it, and you disagree, then you are debating with the Founders themselves, as I said.

        Am I to conclude that you are a proponent of anarchy? If so, throw out the Constitution immediately as it has no place in this discussion. It’s useless to even split hairs talking about anarchy vs. chaos. NEITHER are preferable, and civil societies reject them, as they should.

        BTW, if you are indeed an anarchist, any arguments you pose using the Constitution for substantiation are worthless.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        Vicki: “Mr Soros already has that army…”

        Oh really? Perhaps you’d care to source that delarative statement, if you expect it to have legitimacy. Otherwise, you are only conjecturing.

        Just returning your favor. You are the one who conjectured that Soros would show up on my front lawn. (I did place an ‘if you believe the stories about soros and his manipulation of countries’ in my statement about soros clearly showing that your herring was red.)

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes:

        WHICH Natural Right? I’m talking about the whole body of Natural Rights, aren’t you?

        You claimed that natural rights lead to anarchy and that anarchy is bad. I am going to guess that you are using the 1b definition of anarchy

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
        1a : absence of government
        b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
        c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

        So please explain how natural rights lead to political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

        I will start with right to life. How does my right to live cause political disorder (other than the obvious fact that I disagree with some politicians :) )

      • Vigilant

        Vicki, sorry, I have to go make dinner for my juvenile delinquent (:-) I’ll be back.

        Enjoying the mental stimulation of an edgy but civil discussion. We’ve been eating up PLND bandwidth, haven’t we?

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        And please address my questions, which I’ll repeat for your benefit:

        “When children lie dead in a schoolyard because of a shootout, and one of them is yours, will you champion their natural right to own guns, or will you wish that the law had been in existence that “infringed” upon their rights?

        I answered that question with a link. Perhaps you should follow it. Listen to whom Ms Hupp blames.

        However lets look at the 2 choices you offered against the backdrop of recent shootings.
        In your scenario a shootout has just occurred and there are dead children on the schoolyard. Because of other elements in the discussion it shall be presumed that the shootout was between 2 or more students (children). Missing from your scenario are details like who was shooting at whom. let us theorize 2 students. One shooting at the other. (This is far less likely than what really happens where just 1 or 2 students shoot at everyone else)

        Now the choices you wish me to take are
        1. Support the rest of the students (and teachers) natural right to own guns
        2, Support laws that infringed upon their rights.

        Since this to happen recently (your scenario offered no time period) I observe that my daughter (who is well trained in firearms use and has been since she was 10.) now lies dead. Protected not at all by your offered choice #2 where both shooters totally ignored the 1000 ft limit and 18+ limit and any number of other laws.

        Tell me again which is the rational choice. Take your time.

        Will you sleep better at night secure in the knowledge that in your world MANY more children, wackos and criminals have guns than they do now?”

        Why yes I will. Many more well trained people who know how to safely handle and use firearms. This will give whackos (surviving ones) and criminals pause to consider where they want to be.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        Vicki, sorry, I have to go make dinner for my juvenile delinquent (:-) I’ll be back.

        No worries :) I will need to run off soon for dinner too.

        Enjoying the mental stimulation of an edgy but civil discussion. We’ve been eating up PLND bandwidth, haven’t we?

        Yes. Doing it amost IM style is stimulating. Thank you also for keeping the discussion civil if a bit edgy sometimes. Let me apologize in advance (or after) if I get too edgy.

        I hope that other readers will actually read our points and hopefully it will help them make informed decisions.

      • Joe H

        Vig,
        then have the prison system send a list of ALL FELLONS to all of the gun shops with the notice that they are NOT to buy!! Internet makes that easy! The law abiding citizen should NOT be encumbered by the actions of the non-law abiding Crooks!!!

      • Had_To_Be_Said

        >> “And Had_to_be_said, a little civilty in your tone and less derision will make for a more intelligent conversation.”

        I’d say I am more than reasonably “civil”… and restrained… given the rhetorical, and clearly mis-informed nature, of many of the deceptive, “anti-gun”, assertions, made here.

        Frankly, it has become painfully obvious that the current, repeated, calls for, so-called, “civilty”[sic] has simply become little more than yet another rhetorical-weapon being intentionally misused in manipulating public-discussions. When provable “ignorance” (or even, a lie) is repeatedly, and usually passionately, expressed as fact… and, those assertions cannot simply be pointed-out (as being based upon “ignorance” -of- the actual facts)… then, whomever is willing to rely upon such “ignorance” (I.E. using rhetoric instead of truly debatable information) …has reduced the “conversation” to nothing more than an emotional, deceptive, manipulative, sideshow. All, truly, “intelligent” debate is -ended-. And, those wallowing in their-own ignorance (and -using- the “ignorance of their audience”) can create, and enact, the most elaborate intellectual, and social, fantasies. Unfortunately, reality pays, absolutely, no heed to the wishful-thinking of the deluded (self-deluded, or, those being led astray by mis-information). And the result is an ever more desperate spiral into more, and more, elaborate attempts to justify, and rationalize, failed and irrational positions. This has been proven, by history (and psychology), time, and time, again.

        Then there is the act of, actual, intentional deception. This has (very provably) become the mainstay of extremist social-philosophies (such as the “anti-gun movement”). And, when it is -socially-unacceptable- to call a liar, what they actually are (and can be proven to be) …then those, unethical would-be tyrants (that are always only too willing to lie… as a form of manipulation to achieve their ends)… are free to impose (through such deception) -any- self-serving agenda upon an, effectively, intellectually-helpless society. Furthermore, these types of deceptions -also- include; utilizing false-logic, creating straw-men, and abusing red-herrings… to undermine opposing arguments… -all- of which you, “Vigilant”, chose to demonstrate with you own words, when you posted the following false-assertions…

        >> “Now you and Had_to_be_said may believe that man in a state of nature is preferable to the laws of government, and that is your right, but you must then deny the very foundations of our Republic and the Constitution itself, which by its very nature is a document of government.”

        And…

        >>”You may want to live in a world without gun laws, but 95% of the American people don’t.”

        …which had nothing to due with the actual words, personal-opinions (expressed, or implied), provable-facts, or the subject at hand. So, I’d say, it is you “Vigilant”… who is actually demonstrating little “civility” (and, a decided lack of intellectual-honesty)… towards your fellow debaters (…in this “discussion”).

        In conclusion, when “ignorance”, and out-and-out, “deception” can no longer be plainly pointed-out… due to intentionally instituted, artificial constraints on reasonable, and factual, discourse (especially when these artificial constraints are implemented by the very individuals who benefit from such “ignorance” and “deception”)… then society itself is… quite frankly… doomed. And, I, personally, simply no longer have any patience for those that mis-use ignorance, rhetoric, and deception, to achieve their-own ends. Hence, my responses, and chosen nick-name…

        Had_To_Be-Said

      • CZ52

        “Moreover, it’s ludicrous to imagine Dr. Paul supporting ownership of firearms by children..”

        Why wouldn’t he? I and many of my friends owned firearms starting around age 8-10 years old. It was common to see guns in the vehicles of students parked on high school campuses.

      • Vigilant

        Had_to_be_said says, “I’d say I am more than reasonably “civil”… and restrained… given the rhetorical, and clearly mis-informed nature, of many of the deceptive, “anti-gun”, assertions, made here.”

        This follows on the heels of

        “I think your very explanations clearly demonstrates exactly why your position is such ignorant hogwash… if not an, outright, intentional-deception.”

        “And, by the way, further ignorance on your part is also very clearly demonstrated by your (???…intentional..???) misuse…”

        “you seem to be, quite intentionally, missing)…”

        “However, this particular intentional mis-statement (lie)…”

        No sir, “ignorant hogwash,” “intentional deception,” “quite intentionally missing,” and “intentional mis-statement (lie)” are inflammatory and decidedly uncivil terms in any dictionary with which I’ve been familiar.

        My original statement that “a little civility in your tone and less derision will make for a more intelligent conversation” remains true.

        I will not further engage you in conversation.

      • Vigilant

        Joe H says, “then have the prison system send a list of ALL FELLONS to all of the gun shops with the notice that they are NOT to buy!! Internet makes that easy! The law abiding citizen should NOT be encumbered by the actions of the non-law abiding Crooks!!!

        I agree, Joe, but isn’t that covered by the background check currently in use? And you’ll agree that all felons are not in prison. I have no problem with banning gun possession from convicted felons on parole for crimes such as armed robbery or aggravated assault.

        My point, as a gun owner myself, has always been that yes, the plethora of gun laws is way too restrictive and has indeed been used to consolidate government power over the people, but that SOME regulation is the necessary consequence of maintaining an ordered civil society. It’s purely a matter of degree..

      • Vigilant

        CZ52 says, “Why wouldn’t [Dr. Paul support ownership of firearms by children]? I and many of my friends owned firearms starting around age 8-10 years old. It was common to see guns in the vehicles of students parked on high school campuses.”

        I fired my first weapons at about the age of 10 myself, and have firearms now. In those days the NRA had safety courses for kids (do they still?), and being in a rural environment, no one thought twice about us kids carrying our .22s or 12-guages through the village.

        Times have changed in many ways. I would question the wisdom of allowing every ghetto kid to own a pistol on the basis that it is their “natural right.” Many schools have security checkpoints at their entrances, and I do not find this overly restrictive.

        Ley’s face it: kids, unless duly educated on the proper use of firearms, are simply not always mature enough to handle them with responsibility. And I will never subscribe to allowing them to carry loaded weapons into a school or other gathering.

      • Vigilant

        Hi Vicki I’m back.

        Let me address your posting on the “anarchy” question.

        First, I would accept all dictionary meanings of anarchy as listed. All three are interrelated as follows:

        Absence of government is the most basic meaning. It would describe “man in a state of nature” as portrayed by the Enlightenment philosophers Hobbes and Locke.

        The second meaning, “a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority” is the natural outcome of the first. That seems to be the point of contention here. I (and the Founders) believe(d) that governmental authority is a necessity in order to maintain any kind of productive civilization.

        Once again, as Hobbes said, and I agree, “Unfortunately, but precisely because everyone is, in practice, entitled to do anything, the state of nature comes to be indistinguishable from the state of war, where, in Hobbes’ familiar phrase, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

        I don’t know that any society could have a hope of progressing to anything worthwhile if social Darwinism (might makes right) was the rule of the day. Our society prospers solely because we were given a government by the Founders which honors our sovereignty as individuals but allows the states to place certain restrictions on our behavior.

        One restriction, to give one example, prevents breaching of contracts and metes out adequate punishment for violation. In a state of nature, the victim of the breach could murder the violator if the breach resulted in depriving the victim of a livelihood affecting himself and/or his family.

        If a man comes on your property and steals apples, are you justified in killing him? Under Natural Law you are given the right to claim and protect property, so your defense of that property would include punishing the thief. But each person’s interpretation of “justice” is different, and each person’s toleration has different limits. With the encoding of governmental laws, the punishment is defined and settled, by agreement of society.

        The third definition of anarchy as a Utopia, I believe, virtually proves my point. Utopias do not exist in real life and never will.

        Those “who enjoy complete freedom without government” are the subject of science fiction denizens of another world. My admittedly cynical view of humanity prevents me from ever holding a view that humankind will evolve to a point where individuals can be trusted to govern themselves. The individual in a state of nature can NOT be trusted to govern himself/herself.

        I think the regression of the USA is a good example. We all rail against the growth of “democracy.” On the scale of politics, tyranny is on the far left and anarchy is on the far right. Our Constitutional Republic, as founded, struck a balance between total government power and anarchy.

        Pure Democracy is to the RIGHT of the Republic, i.e., it represents a movement closer to anarchy, not toward more governmental power. Do you agree?

      • Vigilant

        Vicki says, “I will start with right to life. How does my right to live cause political disorder (other than the obvious fact that I disagree with some politicians).

        I think that issue is central to the whole discussion.

        YOUR right to live causes no political disorder at all. If you are the apple thief I described earlier, and you live in a “man in nature” scenario, what happens when the property owner shoots you out of the tree?

        Has Natural Law been violated? Depends on the perspective of the parties involved. Does the right to life trump the right to property? Do property rights trump the right to life? While you and I would probably have the same common sense answer to that, when there is no government to encode and enforce the law, it becomes a matter of situation.

        What if the owner of the apple tree depended for the very life of his family on that tree? What if you were starving and needed the apples to survive? You see, there are a number of scenarios that make a “right to life” argument less than a slam dunk conclusion.

        If the Natural Right of life is sacrosanct, then is any philosophy consistent which says either, “babies can be aborted but condemned murderers shall not be killed,” or conversely, “the right to life of babies is of the utmost importance, but the serial murderer has no right to life?

        We need government, restricted and limited as it is in the Constitution (not as it has become), to legislate laws and define the limits to behavior in a very prudent and unencroaching manner as possible.

        If we do feel a law is wrong (e.g., Roe vs. Wade), we either work to change that law within the system we’ve created, or we revert to Natural Law and murder abortionists.

      • Vigilant

        Vicki, something you said earlier has been nagging at my brain.

        Equating anarchy with chaos: I think that they are related but not necessarily the same animal.

        A good example is found in the book I recently finished, “One Second After,” by William R. Forstchen. It poses a situation where a massive EMP attack has been perpetuated on the US, leaving the nation long term without any electricity, means of communication or transportation. It’s a situation that could actually occur.

        With the government basically paralyzed and with no means of even communicating with the public, a situation of anarchy did indeed exist. A small community finds that its only means of survival lies in martial law to prevent chaos. The harsh measures that it found necessary (forced rationing, summary execution of food thieves, etc.) indicate two things:

        First, that anarchy would result in the smaller, community-level entities to re-form a local government to ensure survival and prevent chaos.

        Secondly, that no modern community or nation can withstand a reversion to a “man in nature,” every-person-for-themselves situation without the application of government “infringement” on their natural rights.

        If we look at Afghanistan today, we see a similar scenario. Once you get outside a 50-mile radius of Kabul, Warlording factions hold territories that have no allegiance to a central government. I surmise that, under a wiping away of government and laws, such a situation in the USA is not beyond consideration.

        Especially today, as government and its power-hungry, corrupt politicians have created a nearly tyrannical means of ruling, one has to wonder if it would be the same power-hungry people who would form new governments under an initial state of anarchy. Those who rise to power when man is in a state of nature have historically NOT been the type of persons who formed our Constitutional Republic.

      • Vicki

        Hi and welcome back. You wrote a lot of things which I did read and may yet respond to but of particular interest to me was:

        Vigilant writes

        We need government, restricted and limited as it is in the Constitution (not as it has become), to legislate laws and define the limits to behavior in a very prudent and unencroaching manner as possible.

        And yet you consistently say that we need some gun control (in the form of possession laws) in direct violation of the very limits you JUST said were needed.

        The key government role that you appear to agree with me and others on is the role to punish the (mis)use of force or fraud on the people. It is clearly evident that the government can not prevent the use as force or fraud continues to this day. The government is better used in the limited ways you suggest by punishing the mis use of force not in the foolish attempt to limit the tools that MIGHT be used.

        By restricting the ownership and possession of the best tools of self, family, community defense you are advocating “prior restraint”. I.E. because the individual MIGHT commit a crime government will make it illegal for the individual to possess a tool.

        Using this position government should not allow people to possess bats because an individual MIGHT commit a crime with it.

        So why does government allow the possession of bats but not guns? Perhaps because of the obvious reason that guns are much better at self and community defense then is a bat. Now ask yourself why the government would fear guns more than bats.

      • Vicki

        A quick comment on felons. You don’t really need that list since they are in prison. Anything they buy has to come in to them thru the guards.

        EX-Felons (the folk that have done their time) should not be barred from the tools of self, family, community defense. If they can’t be trusted why are you letting them roam the street? They can easily make or get guns.

        If the rest of us are also armed and dangerous they will be much less likely to attack us even if they did not get the message with their first time in prison.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        With the government basically paralyzed and with no means of even communicating with the public, a situation of anarchy did indeed exist. A small community finds that its only means of survival lies in martial law to prevent chaos.

        Looks to me like a situation of Chaos existed. And that community promptly put together martial law (essentially doing what you talk about later in Afghanistan) no central government but lots of local governments.

        Hard to claim that anarchy is bad when it has not existed (it does not appear to be stable as mentioned in the video clip I often link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY)

        You also seem to equate “every man for himself” with anarchy. I would equate it with chaos. One of the endearing benefits of religion is to get individuals to look outside themselves and get away from the every man for himself attitude.

        • thomas

          I hardly think Religion is a good recommendation for this discussion. More people have died in the name of religion then any other, and continue to do so to this day. I see religion as just another way to control . Don’t get me wrong, I don care who worships what, Catholic, Jew, Muslam, it’s your choice. I don’t care if you worship a rock in your back yard, but I’m not going to stand next to you (thats the universal “you”) The last thing needed is a gun in the hands of a religious zelot.

      • Vigilant

        Welcome back, Vicki,

        I said, “We need government, restricted and limited as it is in the Constitution (not as it has become), to legislate laws and define the limits to behavior in a very prudent and unencroaching manner as possible.”

        To which you answered, “And yet you consistently say that we need some gun control (in the form of possession laws) in direct violation of the very limits you JUST said were needed.”

        I think I see where the disconnect is now.

        You consider (what I consider to be the most reasonable of) possession laws to be a violation of central (or state) government’s charter, and I do not. That seems to be the crux of the matter.

        Much of this goes, I suppose, to the doctrine of “prior restraint.” I see your point here. We agree to disagree, I think, with respect to possession (prior restraint) and punishing actual misuse of a weapon. There are arguments on both sides which I appreciate.

        Does the “right to bear arms” include an individual acquiring military armaments of vast power, or nuclear or biological weapons? I think this is a valid question, and not out of the realm of possibility, given today’s climate. I think you’ll grant some rich persons with the wherewithal to purchase such things would, in fact, do so under a claim of self defense.

        Or consider an American citizen who has been brainwashed by Al Quaeda and given a suitcase dirty bomb to kill New York City. Does that citizen have the right to possession under natural law, or must we wait until the horrendous damage is done, i.e., after the weapon is misused?

        Do we not have every right to make such possession unlawful? Under your interpretation, the perpetrator(s) would be reined in only after they had committed their heinous act, and millions would be dead.

        I’m not speculating or conjecturing here. I’m posing a hypothetical that may have been deemed impossible in years past, but which now has moved closer to reality than at any other time in our lives.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        I think I see where the disconnect is now.

        You consider (what I consider to be the most reasonable of) possession laws to be a violation of central (or state) government’s charter, and I do not. That seems to be the crux of the matter.

        You are correct. And since no law can actually stop someone from possessing if they choose I would assert that not only is the law a violation of the Constitution, but also a waste. The people who would not abuse the right are the very people the law effects. I will give a concrete example.

        I once foolishly believed that a military base would be safe from a mass shooting cause who but the walking dead would walk into a building on a military base and start shooting everyone inside. A building obviously filled with people trained in the use of firearms for self and community defense. People who routinely carry firearms in situations far more dangerous.

        Well as you know those people, being law abiding, were NOT armed that day. The assailant, ignoring the law against possession, WAS armed. When it was over 13 of our loyal troops lay dead or dying and 30 were wounded. The law abiding lay dead and wounded. The assailant walked away. (later taken down by an off base police officer using a gun.)

        What SHOULD have happened that day. Assailant jumps on table. Several soldiers notice the silly behavior. The Assailant pulls out his gun. 3-7 (or more) soldiers draw their sidearms and drop to crouch or take cover while aiming at the assailant. Assailant yells something and fires a shot at the soldiers. All the soldiers fire at least 1 round. Assailant makes personal acquaintance with Allah. 1-2 dead 0-1 wounded.

        What WOULD have happened that day if Clinton had not disarmed our troops.

        Nothing.

        The assailant would not even have tried.

        If you read my response to your school yard incident and above you will guess that I do not think much of gun control (possession) laws.

        Speaking of which I do not remember your answering MY question. After reading my scenario would YOU choose 1 or 2.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes

        Does the “right to bear arms” include an individual acquiring military armaments of vast power, or nuclear or biological weapons? I think this is a valid question, and not out of the realm of possibility, given today’s climate. I think you’ll grant some rich persons with the wherewithal to purchase such things would, in fact, do so under a claim of self defense.

        If I am standing there between you and several tanks that are there to crush you AND your family, would you want me to have a .22 rifle or a multi rocket anti tank weapon?

        If I am standing there between you and a cruse missile do you want me to have an RPG or a Mk15 Vulcan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppI367_v5xY

        Obama has his finger on the Button. If HE can be trusted with such power why do you think that the average American can’t?

        If George Soros wants one what law do you think he will pay attention to? The silly Americans who say he can”t have it? The UN Small Arms Treaty? I think it does not cover nukes.

        Hey you brought up Nukes and rich men. :)

      • Vicki

        Vigilant writes:

        Or consider an American citizen who has been brainwashed by Al Quaeda and given a suitcase dirty bomb to kill New York City. Does that citizen have the right to possession under natural law, or must we wait until the horrendous damage is done, i.e., after the weapon is misused?

        Since you won’t catch him till after the horrendous damage is done the question has no meaning.

        Do we not have every right to make such possession unlawful? Under your interpretation, the perpetrator(s) would be reined in only after they had committed their heinous act, and millions would be dead.

        Under your interpretation the perpetrators would be reined in only after they had committed their heinous act, and millions would be dead. That is cause the perpetrators were out to MURDER millions and are not going to pay any attention at all to your silly possession law. Meanwhile law abiding citizens who MIGHT have used a rifle to take out the perpetrators in the seconds before the perpetrators activated their dirty bomb, can’t cause they are law abiding and left their rifle at home. (when seconds count the police are only minutes away. And FEMA will get there eventually)

        For a moment lets look at why the founders wanted the people to have weapons.
        “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.”

        Well it is clear that this patriot wanted PEOPLE to have the unlimited power of the sword. And every other TERRIBLE implement of the soldier. Obviously they understood unlimited power. As such your red herring of a dirty bomb is the only excessive example that probably would NOT be part of what the founders believed should be in the hands of the people.

      • Vicki

        thomas says:

        I hardly think Religion is a good recommendation for this discussion. More people have died in the name of religion then any other, and continue to do so to this day.

        More people have died in the name of GOVERNMENT not religion. Government that disarmed them so the government (using whatever pretext it wanted including religion) could enslave or kill them.

        Religion still belongs in this discussion because we are discussing rights and where they come from. Absent religion people can easily be swayed to follow whichever charismatic leader comes along. You can see this effect in the US. As the entirely peaceful religion of Christianity is subverted more and more people fall into the traps of moral relativism. When in the trap self evident truths such as where life, liberty, pursuit of happiness come from become vague and nebulous. Social Justice becomes popular and actual Justice is corrupted.

        Is there an absolute morality? Yes. Can it be easily defined. Yes.
        ——————————————————————————————
        First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
        How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
        is how you shall be judged.
        ——————————————————————————————
        Apply the above principle to moral relativism and reset your moral compass.

        • thomas seiler

          I suppose you can extend historical examples like the Crusades to Government in that they were order by both Kings and Popes, both acting in a form of Goverment. Hitler’s Government orcharstrated the slaughter of the Jews, but he did so because they WERE Jewish, :ie “Religion”. The Taliban may have had some sort of Government but they killed “infidals” (ie “Christians”) because they aren’t Musulem. The Russian Pograms were agains the Jews because they were Jews…….the point is, it is still in the name of Religion. The Spanish Inquisition was against anyone who wasn’t Catholic…..it goes on and on even today. I repeat that I don’t care what anyone belives or who or what any one worships, but don’t expect me to stand next to you.
          If religion brings you comfort, good for you! You have my congratulations…..but leave me out of it. I’m willing to stand for my country, my home and family and my friends but not for Religion in any form. ….However, I WILL stand for YOUR right to worship as you please. But that is for YOU, not the religion. If there is a God and he is all forgiving, he’ll understand. If he is the God of the Old Testiment, then I’m screwed anyway……

      • Vicki

        thomas seiler says:

        …….the point is, it is still in the name of Religion.

        Said that way people usually are trying to blame Religion. Some religions, such as Islam, appear to advocate the MURDER of people just because they are not of that religion. The religion does NOT however advocate the disarming of the target. That is done by governments. Other religions such as Christianity do not advocate murder of non- believers. However people often try to claim that Religion (meaning Christianity) is responsible for atrocities such as the Spanish Inquisition. Even the simplest study of the religion will quickly see that it is people corrupting the religion and not the religion itself and again it is the government (remember why “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…..”) that provided the force against an often disarmed populace.

        Oh and lest we forget. How many million people have been MURDERED in the name of “Pro Choice”.

        I repeat that I don’t care what anyone belives or who or what any one worships, but don’t expect me to stand next to you.

        I assume you mean next to me in my worship :) When it comes to defending my rights I DO expect you to stand next to me as I will stand next to you.

        If religion brings you comfort, good for you! You have my congratulations…..but leave me out of it. I’m willing to stand for my country, my home and family and my friends but not for Religion in any form. ….However, I WILL stand for YOUR right to worship as you please. But that is for YOU, not the religion.

        I accept and thank you. Btw I will also stand with you in defending your right to worship or not as YOU choose. Because of my religion and FOR you.

        If there is a God and he is all forgiving, he’ll understand. If he is the God of the Old Testiment, then I’m screwed anyway……

        I would strongly advise you to consider First Principle I posted above. It was crafted to work for ANY religion including the religion of no religion AND the position of no religion in any form.

        • thomas

          Regarding your “first principle”….I’m not that much of a hyprocrait. But you go right ahead. That said, we seem to genereally agree. And just to corrent a wrong impression I may have left, I did not and will not ever advocate for a disarmed public!! To the old saying ” a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot” I would add “and a gun by every bed”.

      • Had_To_Be_Said

        Having been involved in the “gun rights” (and other “political” and “social”) issues for decades, I have seen the anti-gun movement move from purely irrational, often deceptive, rhetorical arguments (which absolutely depend upon the ignorance of their audience)… into a carefully-crafted manipulation-machine which has very-consciously devolved into intentionally using purely-deceitful misinformation and intentional misuse of rhetorical public-arguments to assuage the natural public resentment at having their-own, basic, (legally, and Constitutionally) protected human-rights, and safety, curtailed by extremist public-policies and authoritarian actions. This has reached a state where most of those that advocate “more gun-control” have moved beyond calls for irrational, and illogical, emotional assertions of their own -utopian- social-philosophy (being officially-expounded, and enforced) upon a “Free Society”… to a point of actual -deception- (factual and rhetorical). This (has been) and -is- being routinely used to attack the basic -right- to self-defence, liberty, and personal self-determination, which -is- the underlying principle upon which the U.S. Constitution (and our nation) was founded (…and why the “2nd Amendment” was quite-specifically added, by our “Founders”).

        But, more to the point, a more basic human-right… the right to “freedom of expression”, -is- now under very specific, and quite-intentional, attack (by those same expounders of social-totalitarianism). This is commonly known as “political correctness”. And, this, less overt (but none-the-less, very effective) censorship has recently been expressed as the unmitigated call to, alleged, “civility”. Strangely, “being civil” is bizarrely being misused to actually mean; being unable to directly rebuff, “ignorance”, irrationality and illogic, or even, actual clearly-intentional lies… when they are being promulgated to underpin unpopular social, and political, agendas. This is not an accident.

        Social-pressure, and “shame”, has -always- been used to control populations. This is actually why “anonymous” speech has been so-carefully protected in “public” matters… lest a vocal-minority (or, even, a repressive majority) unfairly, and in-humanly, manipulate a populace. Anyone, that has truly studied the social-development of human-society (or, who has studied basic “psychological warfare” techniques) is fully aware of this social-control-methodology. This is precisely why, I simply will not accede to intentional attempts at artificially-silencing, truly open debate (especially, when the “debate” is being carefully manipulated by one side of the “discussion”) to falsely advantage their-own rhetoric.

        The point of “Free Speech” is intelligent-democracy. However, the check against “anarchy” in such a setting is the absolute assurance that “deception”, “illogic”, and “irrationality” must be equally accessible to critique and open (and, even, vehement) discussion. And, “political correctness”, and, especially calls for, so-called (but strangely-manipulative, and artificially-restrictive) “civility”, are an absolute anathema to intelligent engagement of -any- important issue. In short… it (social-correctness) is the most virulent and malicious form of “censorship”… which -WE- as “Free Americans” absolutely -must- continually defend, against.

        And, finally…

        Vigilant Says:

        “I will not further engage you in conversation.”

        THANK YOU!

        However, I guess this actually means that… if, -I- won’t play by -your- rules, and avoid pointing-out your intentional misinformation (or possibly, simply, outright ignorance of the actual subject) …or, your absolute dependence upon emotional-rhetoric and illogic… then you will simply try to dismiss me (and all others that disagree with you) by, pretending to be “civil”… while at the same time, actually, very clearly denigrating, our social-skills and intelligence… our position, and our facts. How intellectually-aloof, of you.

        Too bad, that, I’ll simply have none of that…

        Adequately respectfully,

        Had_To_Be_Said

    • James

      PCW, In Woollard v. Sheridan (2012) the Court held that “the ‘good and substantial reason’ requirement is not reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, and is thus unconstitutional.” However, most states require a permit for concealed carry, or ‘carry’ away from one’s home, other than to a shooting range, gun show, etc. The ‘permit’ here was because Woollard wanted to carry a firearm with him everywhere he went. Most states require a permit for that.

  • Don W Young

    Amen!

  • Sirian

    We need about ten thousand judges with this Constitutional state of mind!!

  • dagodave

    Get his name and put him on the ballot for PRESIDENT-First one I heard that wants to do somthing according to the CONSTITUTION -for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!

    • Bob in Boston

      You already have a constitutional conservative on the ballot. His name is Ron Paul and he is the only candidate rated 100% by the Gun Owners of America and the NRA. He’s also written quite a few pro-2nd-amendment bills in the house (although they always seem to get stuck in committee).

      • Livefree1200cc

        Amen Bob – Ron Paul is 100% all about the Constitution and 100% pro gun rights as well.

      • http://gravatar.com/jcfromdc JCfromDC

        Nice try, but the NRA endorsed Harry Reid last election…go figure THAT one out!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        JCfromDC, that is an out & out lie…of course you can prove this too…

      • Joe H

        The NRA is NOT Gun Owners of America!!! BTW they gave Ron Paul an A+ rating!! A bunch of guys tried to question Santorums stand on guns and on Fox, he stumbled over his words like they were unfamiliar!!! I DON’T TRUST HIM! Gingrich is pro-gun, till he needs a deal!!! Romney? Well he’s odumberer light so………..!

  • DavidL

    The correct decision by the judge.

  • Brad

    Since I’m a Marylander, I just might submit my application for a CC permit. In my opinion most liberals won’t agree with the federal courts ruling and keep their controls in place preventing law abiding citizens from protecting them selves out side the house. In an emergency a police officer is always 5 minutes away.

    • Sirian

      Don’t make it a “just might” Brad – JDI – JUST DO IT! It will be to your advantage more than you may realize.

  • cawun cents

    Yay!
    once in a blue moon,the good guys get a point.
    If this trend keeps up,it’ll only be about ten thousand more years before things are back the way they should be.They may be destined to rule and regulate me.They may be vile and pernicious,in their efforts to control me.They may even be able to pipe an explosive device down my chimney and convince the world it is a better place for me being gone.
    But there are too many laws.
    We need to ensure that the books get purged.
    We need a completely civillian committee to review the laws in our nation and a$$can those that are redundant,and which infringe on our Constitutional rights.
    Then politicians,lobbyists and legislators,need to work to keep true our Constitutional rights rather than infringe upon them,out of some idea that they know whats better for me.
    Audit the Fed.
    Hold them responsible.

    They stormed the Bastille,back on that fateful day.Carted those who enjoyed Versailles off to meet the guillotine.Those who lived vicariously off the backs of the downtrodden,were not spared mercy.They enjoyed opulence right up until their heads rolled for it.

    Am I advocating this for our vaunted leadership?
    No.
    But there needs to be a stoppage to the opulence.
    The CONSTITUTION does not guarantee the leadership a right to opulence.
    No more military flights.
    You want to vacation somewhere?,you pay for it out of your own pocket.
    You want to be protected?,you personally foot the bill…..for all of it.Otherwise every person under your personal employment,gets whatever package you have for insurance.Better yet you get whatever package everyone else gets,all of you gubment officials.
    No holding yourself a higher standard than anyone else.
    You spend more than you have,then expect the taxpayer to make up for it?
    I move we make gubment no frills.You travel third class and you like it,if you are using someone elses money.
    None of this….well I’ll just buy a third class ticket with taxpayer funds,then upgrade it with my own money…..nope.You want to have opulence?You pay out of poket.
    Thats how the rest of us have to do it.

    What makes you any different Mr./Ms. legislator?

    As for perks?
    Here is one you’ll all enjoy.My treat so to speak.
    No perk shall be had by lawmakers that is paid for by public monies.
    Any subsidies which you incur must be a matter of immediately posted public record,under penalty of law.Violations result in your dismissal,and all forfeiture of tenure and benefits.
    That way we the people can see who is greasing who,and who is lobbying who.
    These records are to be posted publicly every session of congress with who is lobbying and subsidizing who on them for public viewing.
    Lets see who the real violators of public trust are.Lets smoke them out like vermin.
    Can I get a Hell Yeah?
    This must be done on every level of government,local,state,federal.
    So that unjust laws which infringe on the rights of the common people,cannot be made without a public record being made available to all through all media sources.
    That is all.
    Chhers!
    -CC.

    • Alleyway Al

      You got it just about right!!!!!

    • DanN

      Hell yeah!

    • Larry Hunley

      Hell yes you got it

    • 45caliber

      The original 13th Amendment to the Constitution banned any politician (at any level) from receiving “honors”. This was identified as things like knighthood from England (Kennedy comes to mind) or things like a limosine to ride to work UNLESS every constituent also got it. If one accepted such things, then he lost his position and was never allowed to run for office again – any office. Further, lawyers due to their profession were considered members of the judiciary branch of the government and were banned from holding any position in legislative (Congress) or executive (President) branches. It was considered an amendment to the Constitution until at least 1859. It simply disappeared during the Civil War when the anti-slave amendment was used to over-write it.

      • thomas seiler

        To 45caliber-I do not understand your point. What does Knighthood and Kennedy have to do with this judges ruling?

      • James

        45Caliber, the only 13th Amendment (1865) ended slavery, just after the Civil War (1861-1865) ended.

  • PatrioTom

    Pin a medal on this Patriot Judge!

  • TENWOLVZ

    Well it certainly is nice to see a judge living up to the oath he took and standing for the constitutional rights of the citizens. unfourtanitly the fact that the man was made to give a reason and prove the need for the gun in the first place means that the second amendment has already been restricted. This is the very reason peoe need to get active and take an oath of thier own to not allow the constitution and the bill of rights to be systematiclly altered and abolished under the false pretenses of being for our own saftey and the good of the public. THEY ARE OUR RIGHTS NOT PRIVLEDGES. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND AND HIGHER THEN ANY OTHER. NEVER LET THEM CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE.

    • Bob in Boston

      Yeah, but what sucks is that they hold all the cards, so even if you’re 100% right per the constitution, you’re still going to spend some jail time and spend thousands of dollars that you can’t recover to fight for your rights.

      • Joe H

        Bob,
        This is what I don’t see eye to eye on with the courts. When the supremes rule that the gun laws are unconstitutional, then why do we have to keep going over the same material over and over and over ad-nausium?? When they rule a state gun law as un-constitutional then ANY law like it should be automatically stricken! If they still arrest a man under a law they KNOW is unconstitutional, then they should have to pay reparations to him, FROM THEIR OWN POCKET!!!

  • James

    Term limits would be a great addition also. Just this morning I read a comment about term limits. The poster said two terms for congressmen. One serving in the congress and a second one serving time in prison

    • 45caliber

      James:

      And the second term needs to be much longer than the first term.

  • GRusling

    I have a number of guns, and a concealed carry permit, but I question the intelligence of those who demand the “FEDERAL” government protect their rights under the US Constitution from “STATE” laws, which do not violate their STATE constitution!

    The concept that the FEDERAL constitution somehow overrides a STATE constitution is counter intuitive. The States (which chose to be and remain independent) created the federal government to do certain things only, AND NO MORE! That’s why a “Bill of Rights” was added to our various constitutions, and why they’re somewhat different in each State. They represent what “The People of that State” want their State government to do, and/or not do.

    Our States were never intended to be “cookie cutter copies” of one another. That’s the origin of the very old saying about VOTING WITH YOUR FEET if you don’t like the “Laws” of some locality.

    As for some “FEDERAL” court ruling on State gun laws, I refer you to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which denies the “FEDERAL” government any authority on the issue. If CONGRESS can’t make laws to regulate guns (and it’s clearly denied such authority) then FEDERAL COURTS have no authority to RULE with regard to some STATE law, created in compliance with that STATE’S constitution.

    The theory that the Supreme Court has authority to interpret the constitution is fatally flawed. “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” – Thomas Jefferson

    • Scott in SC

      GR,
      Am I understanding this correctly, you’re advocating throwing away the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights in favor of 50 separate countries no longer united as one?

      • 45caliber

        Scott:
        It is legal for the states to seperate themselves under the Constitution. Despite what happened in the Civil War. I don’t are if all want to go their own ways.

        However … three things are required in this world now to have a viable country. A population base, raw materials of some sort, and a military presence. Consider all the states of the US. Many have one or two of these items but very few have all three. Texas and California are about it. The rest MIGHT exist as a country but only if allowed by the other countries. So I don’t see that as a likely thing to happen.

    • Bob in Boston

      I think the argument is that when you have a state violating the federal constitution (like the 2nd amendment) then the Federal government needs to step in and make sure the state doesn’t take away your god-given rights. Otherwise there is very little recourse for individuals in a repressive state. (like Massachusetts!)
      But I sympathize as well with the people who say the Feds should ONLY intervene when it’s to PROTECT a right that is written into the constitution or the bill of rights – it has no right to do ANYTHING ELSE, especially *restricting* rights.

      • 45caliber

        The original federal government of the US was meant to deal with foreign powers in peace and war and to settle problems between states as far as economic problems were concerned – ONLY. They have strayed away from that, haven’t they?

      • Vigilant

        Bob, you are correct and GRusling doesn’t understand the Constitution.

        GR says, “As for some “FEDERAL” court ruling on State gun laws, I refer you to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which denies the “FEDERAL” government any authority on the issue.”

        (1) The Second Amendment says no such thing. Ratification of the Constitution entailed an express agreement by the states that gun ownership is a right for ALL, regardless of which state they lived in. Self-defense is a Natural Law, and the Second Amendment guards against any lower level government from taking that right away.

        (2) The Federal government has every right to step in and nullify that portion of a state law that is counter to the freedom expressed in the Second Amendment. Instead of bitching about the government, GRusling should be celebrating the fact that the judge confirmed the gun ownership rights.

      • James

        Bob, In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court held a D.C. ordinance in violation of the Second Amendment. That was the first instance where any law was held violative of the Second Amendment. Then in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) a Chicago ordinance was held to have violated the basic right to bear arms, and that right was thus added to the ‘liberty’ of the Fourteenth Amendment. Then in Woollard v.Sheridan (2012), a Maryland statute was held in violation of the Second Amendment, the court stating that the Second Amendment “guaranteed” the right to bear arms to all Americans. This is the first federal court case to so-hold that the Second Amendment now applies to the States.

  • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

    …as it should have been…

  • eddie47d

    Anyone can purchase a weapon and defend their home and Raymond could have done that. He still had his Second Amendment rights. Apparently he did buy a gun after that incident to protect his home and possessions. The article didn’t really explain why HE needed a weapon on the street which had nothing to do with the home invasion. “Just in case” is a poor excuse and reminds me of an incident in Tempe Arizona two days ago. Two men were fighting in a bar and both had guns and so did a couple of others. When the shooting stopped 14 people were wounded in the gunfire.One of the gunners got away and one went to the hospital. Seems like an awful lot of innocent victims so someone can have the privilege to carry. Now if more had weapons then there would have been dead bodies so don’t give me the excuse that everyone should have been armed.

    • thomas seiler

      eddie 47-Not only is your response a poor excuse to denie rights but in fact supports the “right to keep and bear arms”. If the story you have related is true, it is one of the first and rare instances where indivuidals with CC permits have resorted using a weapon in a like situation and not to stop an ongoing crime. Further to the story, what was the reason for fight? WAS a crime occuring, like armed robbery? To simply say they “were fighting” and leave it at that is not enough.

      • CZ52

        “The case began when Plaintiff Raymond Woollard obtained a handgun permit after fighting with an intruder in his Hampstead home in 2002,”

        eddie apparently cannot read He purchased the gun and permit because he was attacked in his home.

        eddie also neglected to tell us the Tempe shooting was a gang shooting not just a couple of guys having a dissagreement. He also lied and said the shooting occured in a bar when it occured outside a concert venue nightclub.

      • eddie47d

        The shootout started after an argument and it was outside a concert nightclub (bar) where folks were trying to get in. My article said both were in line when the argument ensued and that may or may not have anything to do with gangs. Raymond didn’t and doesn’t need a CC permit to protect his home as CZ52 is implying.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        CZ52, nothing new for eddie to distort, lie or fail to comprehend or understand…anything…that is the whole of his existance…to never “get it”…let alone get it right… :)

      • CZ52

        “Raymond didn’t and doesn’t need a CC permit to protect his home as CZ52 is implying.”

        I neither said or implyed that eddie. I said the reason he got the permit and purchased the gun was because he was attacked in his home. As the article clearly stated he had the permit for carry outside the home I did not think that fact needed to be repeated but I can see that in your case it needed to be spelled out like you would for a three year old.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        eddie backpeddels after saying this in his initial diatribe, “Two men were fighting in a bar and both had guns and so did a couple of others.”

        Sure doesn’t sound like they were in line outside the bar the way eddie said it. Was it said that way intentionaly? You bet it was! Despite eddie’s claims otherwise…he is an anti-gun extremist through and through.

      • CZ52

        Agreed JeffH. I have never seen eddie oppose a more restrictive gun proposal or support a less restrictive gun proposal.

      • CZ52

        I’m supprised eddie hasn’t tried to blame the gun dealers.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Oh, eddie does believe the gun dealers are all a bunch of crooks who’d sell to any Tom, Dick or Harry and knowingly violate Federal & state gun laws. His favorite “code” words are “loophole” & “straw”….and he believes Feinstein’s 90% figure on US guns in Mexico too.

      • eddie47d

        There is plenty of blame to go around for gun crimes and unscrupulous gun dealers ( but we have had that discussion before)and that figure is 80% Jeff.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        One point you tend to overlook is that your statements have been proven erroneous time and time again and yet you keep repeating them over and over again…as Mr. Livingston has clearly stated…”when will you learn”?

        • thomas seiler

          To Jeffh-I am confused. Are you responding to me or to eddie47?

      • eddie47d

        When are you going to stop hiding from the truth Jeff. Just because something says “right wing talking point” doesn’t mean it’s right.

      • CZ52

        I am not going to hold my breath waiting for eddie to learn JeffH.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        thomas seiler, my bad for any confusion…should have added eddie’s name into my comment. :)

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        CZ52, in the 2 +- years eddie’s been here, the only thing he’s ever learned are liberal “code words and talking points” and that he’s not well recieved by consevative or liberals…other than that he’s really learned nothing…well he does seem to support Ron Paul…but then again he’s well know for parroting and the majority on this website also support Ron Paul. Could just be another case of “Polly want a cracker”.

      • Joe H

        JeffH,
        I explained that phenomenom awhile back See, eddie doesn’t think Ron Paul can win. He then supports R.Paul trying to get a few more supporting them. By his convoluted thinking, By doing this, he further insures that his hero Odumberer gets back in!!! That way, if it fails, he can always say “Gee I supported Paul,what more do you want?”

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Joe H., OMG! :) I think you got it right!

    • Alleyway Al

      One rule of ccp (In most states) is not to carry when at a bar and not when you comsuming alcohol. They are not reponsible carriers, just like they are some drivers who are not responsible.

      • Joe H

        Alleyway Al,
        Just like the Chardon Ohio school shooting, the kids uncle left his gun where the kid could gain access to it! now we already have the anti’s calling for banns on guns around here!!! It was a tragic incident, but the kid, the uncle and the kids family are partially to blame, too!!!

    • Alleyway Al

      Eddie I just found an article on the tempe shooting. It was at a bar where a self proclaimed member of the “crips” gang was proforming. I don’t think these guys were law abiding ccp holders I would be surprised if they even had a permit. Too bad they did’nt kill each other. Just a couple gun toting THUGS!, not upstanding citizens if you asked me. You left out the part about _gang_ involvement of the parties singing at the club. Gangs and their activities is what motivated me to get my permit. Concerned upstanding, law abiding citizen in TN.

    • Bob in Boston

      Wait, so the 2nd amendment says “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you’re in your own house”? I’m pretty sure that’s not what it says. If people did what you’re saying then only criminals on the street would have guns. No thanks – I’ll keep my concealed carry license thank you. Even if I only rarely carry, the government has no right to tell me that I *can’t* unless I have done something to indicate that I would infringe on the rights of other people.

      • kkflash

        The judge in this Maryland case is to be commended, but he didn’t go far enough. The 2nd Amendment is brief, to the point, and unqualified. I think having to get a permit to carry a gun is an Infringement in itself, and any law requiring a permit to “bear arms” should be declared unconstitutional.

      • Vigilant

        kkflash,

        Do you think high schoolers should carry loaded guns to school? Shall we allow the criminally insane to purchase weapons? How about allowing people with mental instabilities and violent records to own guns?

        No sir, there’s a reason for licensing and permits, unless you advocate wild west anarchy. And that, I would say, takes Libertarianism a bit too far.

      • CZ52

        Vigilant the “wild west anarchy” exists only in the movies. Contrary to what hollywood would have us believe the old west was a rather placid place overall.

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        Do you think high schoolers should carry loaded guns to school?

        Why not? If they are law abiding they are not a problem. If they are not, please explain why they would obey you and not carry anyway.

        Shall we allow the criminally insane to purchase weapons?

        Why are you allowing the criminally insane to walk the street?

        How about allowing people with mental instabilities and violent records to own guns?

        You going to keep them from cars and bats too? If they are that much of a danger to society why are they walking the streets?

        No sir, there’s a reason for licensing and permits, unless you advocate wild west anarchy. And that, I would say, takes Libertarianism a bit too far.

        There is a reason but it is not to keep the criminally insane from purchasing a gun. Or are you one who foolishly believes that criminals actually bother with licenses and permits.

        The reason for licenses and permits is to register the guns so the government knows who has them when it comes time to take them all.

        As to the red herring about the wild west you need to learn the difference between Hollywood scripts where you need dramatic tension (protagonist and antagonist) vs the real west.
        http://www.guerrillaexplorer.com/2011/11/how-wild-was-wild-west.html

      • Joe H

        Vig,
        Come on guy! Most all the states I have heard of have a law making it illegal to sell a hand gun to anyone under 21. Long guns are different.

      • Vigilant

        Joe H says, “Come on guy! Most all the states I have heard of have a law making it illegal to sell a hand gun to anyone under 21. Long guns are different.”

        Precisely what I’m saying. Vicki would say that those laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon a right.guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I disagreed.

      • Joe H

        Vig,
        doesn’t it seem ironic to you that the 18 year old can carry a weapon in war, yet he can’t own one?? seems just like the law that used to say they couldn’t VOTE!

      • Vicki

        Joe H says:

        Most all the states I have heard of have a law making it illegal to sell a hand gun to anyone under 21. Long guns are different.

        Actually that is a federal law. GCA 1968
        “(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;”
        http://www.keepandbeararms.com/laws/gca68.htm

        So some weapons are limited to 18 and older. Others (handguns in particular) are limited to 21 and older.

        So prior to 1968 people under 18 could buy guns. Lot of mass school shootings after 1968.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      The article didn’t say he was trying to get a concealed and carry permit. He was trying to get a permit to have a handgun. That’s how I read it.

      • James

        Nancy, Woollard had a handgun, he wanted permission to carry it with him wherever he went, in order to defend himself. The Court held Maryland’s law which required Woollard to state a “good and substantial reason” why he should have such right to carry was too vague. In effect, the Court said if Woollard has the right to defend himself at home, he has the right to defend himself wherever he might be.

  • DAVID MICHAEL MYERS of WV

    THE NRA IS A PHONEY BALONEY OUTFIT. I HAVE URGED WAYNE LAPIERRE FOR YEARS TO ENDORSE OR RATE CANDIDATES BASED UPON THEIR SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FREEDOM.

    HE SAYS HIS IS A ONE-ISSUE ORGANIZATION. IF YOU VOTE PRO 2D AMENDMENT THEY’LL GIVE YOU AN A CANDIDATE OR A+ IF YOU ARE ALREADY IN OFFICE NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOCIALIST CRAP YOU SUPPORT.

    I HAVE REJECTED ALL THEIR APPEALS FOR MONEY FOR YEARS.

    UNTIL THEY RATE ON FREEDOM ISSUES I WON’T GIVE ‘EM ANOTHER NICKEL.

    • Bob in Boston

      My issue with the NRA is that they’ve rated people like Santorum higher than Ron Paul even though Ron Paul has gone out of his way to actually draft 2nd-amendment-friendly legislation. Nobody is as strong in the 2nd Amendment issue as Ron Paul!

      • thomas seiler

        To call the NRA “Phoney Baloney” is just disingenious. They ARE a one issue organization…..the right to keep and bear arms. period. To take them to task for granting Democrats A or A+ for supporting the 2nd Amendment shows they are non-partisian. In addition to that a very strong argument can be made that the 2nd Amendment is the backbone of the entire Constitution…with out it, “Freedom” may not exist in the country because then there would be no recourse for us, the citizen , to take agains an overreaching Government.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        thomas, accurate and well stated. :)

      • CZ52

        They NRA has on occasion mentioned a persons stand on issues other than firearms. They don’t rate them on the other issues because they are, as others have stated, a single issue organization. Although, you could say they are a two issue organization because they do support hunters rights as an extension of their firearms positions.

      • Sameyeam

        Problem with NRA is they don’t look any further than a single event. Example is Reid–what did he do–supported building a gun range or something. Tester of Montana supposed to be big gun advocate. But both of these clowns voted for both Kagan and Sotomayer–the worst possible choices for backing gun rights that the supreme court could get. NRA didn’t take that into consideration……

  • bono

    Excellant news, every person should have a right to keep their gun. Sovereign we all are, let’s rejoice.

  • DG

    Judge Legg __it is really a blessing to hear about a Federal Judge that is not CORRUPT –I have been through the corrupt district court system–Thank you so much –maybe with judges like you we might still have a chance to get our freedoms back

  • ROGER, Canadian Libertarian

    If only Canada had judges like that…. in the individual Provinces, would be sufficient..BUT we don’t and the day will come when Canadians will wish they had.

    Other than for hunting, our governments have the monopoly on FORCE..and we all know what that means for the future

    History tells the truth

    • James

      Roger, the Woollard v. Sheridan (2012) case has just placed the right to bear arms under federal jurisdiction. In Woollard, that appears to be a good thing. Time will tell how long that correct treatment of the right will last.

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.