- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged natural rights
The Gun Rights Implications Of Trump’s Guilty Verdict
From The Truth About Guns:
With 34 felony convictions being delivered to President Donald J. Trump Thursday afternoon by a New York jury—in what is questionably a rigged trial and unquestionably a politically motivated trial—there remain a number of questions on what will actually happen next and how it will play out. One thing that is not in question, at least until a successful appeal is decided on, is that Trump is now barred from owning or possessing firearms.
Journalist Stephen Gutowski over at The Reload was quick to report on some of the obvious ironies this situation creates for gun rights in this country.
New York Has Been Anti Gun Since The Founding
From Ammoland:
Sure, the State ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, which prominently included the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. However, New York’s elder statesmen who agreed to that were likely never happy doing so.
They probably only did so to avoid many Americans inferring justifiably that the State was a viper’s nest of “Tories” (Loyalists to the Crown). At the War’s conclusion, they may have continued to harbor bad feelings about the fledgling Nation. Drawing this conclusion is not unsound.
New York alone furnished about 23,000 loyalist Red Coat troops, perhaps as many as all the other colonies combined.
In Defense Of Self-Defense
From Reason:
Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate outcomes today.
These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first. But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it is inconsistent to support such laws.
Rhode Island Introduces Sweeping Gun Ban Law
From Guns.com:
The anti-gun measure, 2020-S 2004B/2020-H 7102Aaa, prohibits anyone from “manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, possessing, or having under his or her control†any firearm that doesn’t have a serial number or is made almost exclusively of plastics or through a 3-D printing process. The bill passed the Rhode Island House of Representatives 61-8 last week after an earlier passage by the state Senate.
Self Defense Is Non Negotiable
From Free The People:
In the face of the harmful and derogatory notion that anyone with a gun is dangerous and that guns divide us as a nation, the thousands of men and women who stood in Richmond shattered these stereotypes. They proved actions speak louder than words as people from different genders, races, cultures, and socio-economic backgrounds shined a light on the fact that guns do not inherently generate more violence. Furthermore, it also highlighted that one’s right to protect oneself is rooted in diversity and a commonality that we all share, no matter our differences.
What the entire nation witnessed was a clear message that not all laws are just or even enforceable, especially when they are a threat to liberty. After all, the world has not yet seen unarmed individuals dethrone any tyrant during times of upheavals. Thus, any government’s attempt to disarm its own citizens should be seen as a suspicious act.
Oregon Proposes Clearly Unconstitutional Bill
From Statesman-Journal:
A bill set to appear in the Legislature this year would require Oregonians to obtain a permit before buying a gun, limit the amount of ammunition a person could buy, outlaw magazines with a capacity of more than five rounds and create gun locking and storage requirements.
It’s the broadest of more than a dozen bills dealing with guns submitted by lawmakers ahead of the 2019 Legislature, which convenes Jan. 22.Â
A Total Gun Ban Is The Goal
From The Federalist:
The tragedy at the heart of the gun control debate is that any firearm that can be used for good can also be used for evil. There are not good guns and bad guns. There are just guns, used by good and bad people. Any firearm that is effective for legitimate uses like hunting and self-defense will also be effective when used for evil purposes.
Nor can guns always be kept out of the wrong hands, for we cannot always know who will do evil, and those known to be hellbent on doing harm to others will often circumvent restrictions. Thus, the only realistic way to prevent mass shootings and end gun violence would be a total gun ban, ruthlessly enforced. Unfortunately, gun control advocates’ rhetoric is deliberately crafted to obscure this uncomfortable reality.
California Continues Assault on Second Amendment
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 14/May/2018 17:09
From Reason.com:
Two new federal court decisions highlight a harsh new reality: California has effectively repealed the Second Amendment inside its borders.
In the first case, decided yesterday, a district judge ruled against the National Rifle Association’s state affiliate in a challenge to onerous new California rules targeting popular semi-automatic rifles. That 2016 law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), is called the Assault Weapons Control Act.
Australia Arming Police With Rifles
From Guns.com:
Citing threats posed by gun-armed criminals and potential terrorists, law enforcement in Australia are getting more rifles.
“To enhance our abilities to respond to a major security incident or terrorism attack, we are currently scoping the potential use of a limited allocation of long-arm firearms to better support frontline police,†said an Ashton spokesman.
Are Age Limits For Guns Constitutional?
From The Washington Examiner:
Some federal courts have dealt with a different firearm age limit, upholding the 21-year-old age requirement for handgun sales by licensed dealers. That rule passed Congress in the Gun Control Act of 1968, long before the AR-15 became one of the nation’s most popular guns, and doesn’t ban young-adult handgun possession.
Michael Connelly, executive director of the U.S. Justice Foundation, a public interest law firm that supports gun-rights advocates, said, “I think an effort to ban people between 18 and 21 from purchasing AR-15s would be vulnerable to a Second Amendment challenge, particularly in light of the current makeup of the Supreme Court.”
Bill To Strip ATF of Some Powers
From Guns.com:
In its present form, the measure it would protect large caliber rifles and shotguns from being reclassified as “destructive devices†under the National Firearms Act. In several states, rifles chambered in .50 caliber BMG have been banned and Bishop’s legislation would prevent such a curtailment on the federal level.
Next, the bill would remove ATF’s ability to reclassify ammunition as being armor piercing. This could derail past rule changes such as seen with the 5.45mm 7N6 loading as well as the attempted reclassification of “green tip†ammunition.
North Dakota Passes Constitutional Carry
From Guns.com:
House Bill 1169 codified the right of those with a North Dakota drivers’ license or state-issued ID card to carry a concealed handgun. The bill passed the House last month 83-9 and the Senate this week 34-13. Burgum, who carried an “A†rating from the National Rifle Association during his election campaign last year, contends the measure reaffirms Second Amendment rights.
Circuit Judge To Students: Ignore Constitution
Posted by Brian in Opinion, Threat Watch on 6/Jul/2016 07:00
From Judge Richard Posner:
I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21stcentury. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.