"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
CRPA web link - https://store.crpa.org/categories.php?category=Membership
CCRKBA web link - http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=1581
... join them today!
Much of our Second Amendment postings are done on ...
Good Second Amendment Resource
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATIONNRA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONGUN OWNERS OF AMERICA2nd AMENDMENT FOUNDATIONJEWS for the PRESERVATION of FIREARMS OWNERSHIPCCRKBA - THE COMMON SENSE GUN LOBBYSTATE GUN CARRY GUIDESCARRY CONCEALED.NETUS CONCEALED CARRY
HANDGUNLAW.USI CARRY .ORGGUN NEWS DAILYWILSON COMBAT - Custom FirearmsBLUE FORCE GEAREVERY CITIZEN A SOLDIER
find out: http://libertygunrights.com/aboutus.html
2nd Amendment TV
Because self defense is a sacred right
As we enter the home stretch of this year's critically important election, two things are certain: First, the winner of the election will have a profound effect on your Second Amendment rights, and second, it's crucial that you know where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment so that you can make the right choice.
Note to readers/posters: Reader comments are in chronological, indented sequence, with the newest ones on the higher-numbered pages below. You must be registered on this site to post. You may have to scroll/page down to get to where you want to be.
That 60 round mag is actually 2 30 round mags attached end to end. (sorry, kind of a random thought there)
What's worse is nobody in this pic has common sense enough to know that they should be terrified right now.
Subject: FW: ALERT: California outs all CCW Permit holders, Past and Present, on government website
I wonder how much of a problem this is, really. Don’t misunderstand; I don’t like it even a little bit, but I don’t like it because it is none of government’s business who has a CCW because government has no lawful authority to demand a citizen get a permit to exercise a right in the first place. And, of course, I don’t like it because the purpose of carrying concealed is to conceal the fact you are armed, and this is just a Marxist government intimidation against those exercising their right. But the information provided does not include home addresses or telephone numbers, and unless a perp knows the individual listed, or the individual is listed in the phone book, what difference does it make? Well, I can think of one thing: Suppose you apply for a job and your HR person is a hoplophobe: He/she could look you up on the list and not hire you for that reason, or fire you on some trumped up excuse if you were already hired. But about the first lawsuit filed against the State of California for complicity in the crime of burglary or for complicity in a wrongful termination would put a stop to this crap, I think, and advance the cause of the right to keep and bear arms.
Want to know who is armed in public and who isn’t in California? There’s an app for that. Actually a taxpayer funded state government website.
You can search by name or by city. I typed in the City of San Diego and 4700 results came up. Many of the permits are expired or revoked. The files tell the world why you have a permit and when you got it.
Big Brother is not only controlling most of our lives, he’s also talking to your neighbors and telling them all about you through the internet.
Got freedom and privacy? Hardly.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The problem for [Joe] Lieberman is the gun lobby is the majority of the American people. It's not a lobby that is stopping all of this. The reason that the lobby is strong is because it represents overwhelming opinion in the United States. How do we know that? The president of the United States, who had this tremendous opening if he wanted to push the use of guns after a tragedy of this magnitude could easily have done it and he has assiduously stayed away because he knows it's a losing political proposition.
Liberals in the country want gun control, Democrats don't. They normally overlap, but not on this. Democrats will not go near it because of the experience as we heard earlier about 1994, and they don't want to repeat that again. We're at the height of an election and they won't go near it. You're going to have discussion on talk shows and none in Congress and nothing will happen in terms of legislation.
(I sure hope he's right!)
First Roberts. Et tu, Scalia?
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
By John Aloysius Farrell
Updated: July 29, 2012 | 11:41 a.m.
July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.
((RELATED: 3 Steps Obama Can Take on Gun Control)
When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."
As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.
In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."
Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.
Personally, I think the phrase, "shall not be infringed" is pretty darned clear!
|Gun Owners of America|
The pro-gun community breathed a collective sigh of relief after United Nations negotiators failed to produce a treaty regulating global arms trade on Friday.