Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    MGO Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw MI
    Posts
    3,565
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

    10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
    U.S. Code
    Notes
    prev | next
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    That is who are members of the militia. That still holds true today.

    Now with that thought in mind read this:
    "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."

  2. #32
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Rochester Hills
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    I know English isn't your first language but maybe you can find someone to translate the phrase "shall not be infringed".

    It's what the second amendment is all about.

    Rather then compare our country to yours, pick a couple states that equal about the size & population of France & compare those.
    Or compare us to all of Europe.
    I finally found someone to translate "Shall not be infringed" because I really couldn't figure it out by myself. Thanks for the advice (his name is Google by the way....good friend of mine)

    Joke aside............that's the whole point: do you think - in 2019 - that a "well regulated militia" makes sense? I perfectly understand why it was written like that, but it was more than 200 years ago. Should it still be brandished as the ultimate argument nowadays?

    By the way, why the size of a country matters? And keep in mind that I've never said France was a perfect example, I'm just saying after all those mass shootings, I'm shocked that we keep doing nothing about firearms.
    And please note that I've also never said guns should be taken away from Americans....

    OK, I guess I will stop here because it could last forever.....I will go back to my "English 101" lesson
    And thank you all for sharing different opinions. Hope to see you at the shooting range someday

    Have a good night

  3. #33
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    As compared to the "actors" in the prior mentioned French incidents? I disagree with that......an organized terror group such as ISIS has enough money and support in the "black market" to provide any kind of weapons to their "members", anywhere in the world
    An angry or mentally ill person in the US doesn't need all of that to find guns and ammo
    You don't get to separate the two, or any other class of people. The laws apply equally to all, and must address the issue. if you want to address an issue with an angry or mentally ill person, you don't write another firearm restricting law. We already have laws against terrorism, and they won't prevent anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    I do agree that some proposals made (and I don't know them all) wouldn't have changed the latest mass shooting....This is why it would make sense to propose something smart and efficient
    Let's have a little history lesson. NONE of the current federal gun control laws would have stopped the event they were written to address. Starting with the NFA. Certain firearms were used in the St. Valentines day "massacre", and one or two others were favored by a couple of particular "gangsters". The "outlawing" of these favored guns didn't stop them. The "gangland" era ended when they hunted down and captured or killed all of the actors.
    Next GCA '68, and the creation of the FFL system, post Kennedy assassination. This would not have stopped Lee Harvey Oswald from getting a rifle, he would just not have been able to "mail order it".
    The Hughes amendment - '86, as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (which didn't actually pass) closed the registry for any new entries and shut off new full auto to the general populous. No reason for it, they did it because they could. Reagan signed it, but thought that the amendment would be quickly struck down in court.
    AWB '94. An attempt to "reduce" violence. Two things; the violent crime rate was already in decline and the rifles that were "banned" are used in such a small percentage of crime it made no difference at all. We did get stuck with the "Brady check" from all of that, but the NICS system is so flawed it is ridiculous. And of all of the illegal attempts that they claim to stop, how come there are so few prosecutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    1 thing I really don't understand though: You say there are already tons of law about firearms. Buying a gun at a FFL means background check to prevent for example a felon to purchase a firearm. So why the same background check is not required at gun shows or private sale? It means a felon who knows cannot "legally" buy a gun will go at a gun show and get one? Unless I'm mistaken?
    First, there is NO "gun show loophole". There are FFL transfers and private sales. The problem with any form of "universal background check" is how do you enforce it? And what business is it if grandpa wants to give a prized hunting rifle to his grandson? Without having a registration database of every single firearm in the US, how would the .gov know if you transferred a firearm "legally? This is a line we cannot allow them to cross.

    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    Anyway, I'm happy to see we can have such discussions on a forum without any insults or whatsoever.........
    You are getting close to the line where I might start talking to you in a manner I reserve for......

    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    How many times since the revolutionary war has another army attempted to walk into the US? How should I understand that question ? Are you saying other "armies" are scared about US citizens being armed? I would rather think it's because the US Army is one of the most powerful army in the world, if not THE most powerful
    Bad guys will always have guns.....unfortunately. And the case of the good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting is very rare (the only one I've heard was in the case of the shooting in a church in Texas....but maybe there are others I'm not aware of)
    And don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those "Many of the ones that want to take away our guns want to take down our border fences."
    Q1: at least 4 that I am aware of, and it was the "citizen soldier" that was the first line of defense. Yet that is not the reason for the Second amendment.
    Q2-3: I don't know where he was going with it, but are you aware of all the munitions that were provided to the "resistance" fighters? Things that they should have had, and knew how to use.
    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    As I said, I'm not an American but I think I understand the 2nd amendment about having a well regulated militia at the time the US didn't have a regular army available....But it's not the case anymore, right?
    Wrong!
    It is true that the US didn't have a standing army at the start of the Revolution, they did by the end, but the army is limited. The constitution does not allow funding for an army for more than two years at a time. The Navy is a different story, they are mandated to maintain the Navy, and by extension the Marines.

    You also don't understand the definition of the "militia". It is every able bodied "person" (initially "man") between the ages of 16 and 60.

    Time for additional review of the Second Amendment:

    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.
    The first two phrases are merely preambulatory, but they do set a frame for thought.

    "A well regulated Militia" This translates to "A well supplied, trained and equipped able body of citizens".
    "being necessary to the security of a free State" This talks about the why, it is needed to protect the FREEDOM of the state, not the defense of the nations lands. After just having over thrown a tyrannical government on these lands, they wanted to make sure their posterity could do it again if necessary.
    These last two phrases are pretty self explanatory, yet I have seen some arguments even on this board about how it limits us. Those arguments don't hold water, but you can't convince them of that.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" First it is a "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the militia, not some sports club member, not something that can be taken away without due process of law. It also proclaims that right to own and "bring forth", "arms" which is short for armament. Which includes more than just "small arms". They could have specified, they didn't.
    "shall not be infringed" This is the lock on the whole thing. If you read the 10th amendment along with the 2nd (both adopted as part of the Bill of Rights, the same time as the rest of the constitution) you will understand that not only the Feds are prohibited from infringing on this right, the States are as well.

    We have been letting them get away with a lot for a long time. And once congress established the BATF and gave them authority to promulgate "rules" to enforce all of the shoddily written laws, it has just been a run away mess. This is why so many say "not another inch".
    They won't and can't cure the issue by "controlling" guns. It is a people problem all of the way around. A part of the issues can be cured with education, but that will take most of a generation to take full effect. Another part is social, and it would be the family to fix that. The remainder is what everyone screams about the mentally disturbed and the actual acts of terrorism, and controlling the firearms of the upstanding honest citizen will not change what happens with them.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  4. #34
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    Quote Originally Posted by french_guy_2012 View Post
    What would be violating your rights in saying an eye exam (as an example) is requested once in a while, or a supervised shooting session once a year (also as an example) showing you still know the basics of firearm safety and how to use them?
    What would be violating rights about safety exams? Look up the "literacy tests" some areas forced black men to pass before being allowed to vote. They were absolutely designed to make people fail and not be able to exercise their rights. This is already true of guns, with some areas forcing people to have "good reason" for carrying a gun, passing courses that take 2-3 days and re-registering every year, etc. When you regulate a right, you give the bad people in government opportunities to make it too expensive to exercise your rights. Look at chicago - they wouldn't allow pistols in the city until the supreme court said they had to. So they enacted registration, mandatory classes, proficiency tests, fees, licenses, etc. - And they also made it almost impossible to get the license because there were no gun ranges in the city to take your class or demonstrate your skill. People in chicago don't have cars because most people use the public transportation, so they basically said "sure, we'll follow the law, but we're still not letting anybody get guns". This, too, was found to be unconstitutional and they eventually had to let people get guns and carry them. but it took years, and a lot of fighting in court, and all the people of chicago were temporarily denied their rights.
    Even here in michigan, it is a right to carry a gun, but the state government has regulated the ability to carry your gun concealed - and there have been many questions about why they charge so much for the license, where the money is going, etc. It also requires a class (usually $100) and a license fee (just over $100) so people who can't afford $200 and taking a day or two off work to exercise their rights are out of luck.

    The simple fact is that the foundation of this country says that being armed is A RIGHT, and giving anybody the ability to regulate that turns it into "a privilege" that can be taken away, or made impossible to comply with. We have a process to legally remove the right by eliminating the second amendment, but there has never been enough support to do it. Every "common sense" law passed to make guns harder to get is a violation of the second amendment, because it is an infringement on a right which "shall not be infringed".
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  5. #35
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    We have been letting them get away with a lot for a long time. And once congress established the BATF and gave them authority to promulgate "rules" to enforce all of the shoddily written laws, it has just been a run away mess. This is why so many say "not another inch".
    They won't and can't cure the issue by "controlling" guns. It is a people problem all of the way around. A part of the issues can be cured with education, but that will take most of a generation to take full effect. Another part is social, and it would be the family to fix that. The remainder is what everyone screams about the mentally disturbed and the actual acts of terrorism, and controlling the firearms of the upstanding honest citizen will not change what happens with them.
    Nailed it. The only thing I would change about what you said is fixing families before education. Family life is so much more important than a gov regulated public education. Having a healthy family life sets students up for taking advantage of an education. And I would further define the "people problem" as a morality problem. And this is why I believe, if left completely up to the government and complacent citizens, gun laws will only get worse and society will continue to decline. Those in power who want to ruin this country know good and well that by destroying families and removing morality you can allow the government to brain wash and set new rules for younger generations which will cultivate voters. It's a cycle that history has proven works, and will continue until we the people have had enough. Why so many people cannot understand this is beyond me.

  6. #36
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by DrScaryGuy View Post
    Look at chicago - they wouldn't allow pistols in the city until the supreme court said they had to. So they enacted registration, mandatory classes, proficiency tests, fees, licenses, etc. - And they also made it almost impossible to get the license because there were no gun ranges in the city to take your class or demonstrate your skill. People in chicago don't have cars because most people use the public transportation, so they basically said "sure, we'll follow the law, but we're still not letting anybody get guns". This, too, was found to be unconstitutional and they eventually had to let people get guns and carry them. but it took years, and a lot of fighting in court, and all the people of chicago were temporarily denied their rights.
    Clearly those are common sense laws! And the facts back them up. We've seen how these laws have prevented so much crime in Chicago and so many people are flocking there to begin new lives in the safest city in our country!

    Wait a minute...

  7. #37
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ingham county
    Posts
    454
    French guy,
    As pointed out we have a people problem. What is happening by focusing on guns we are not focusing on the things we could do to reduce incidents of violent crime, including mass murders. Programs that target at risk kids have been shown to have measurable results in reducing violent crime and homicide rates. Gun control has not been as effective if effective at all. It's fair to point out that gun control advocates don't talk about reducing homicide rates only reducing gun homicides.

    If we are going to be serious about addressing the problem, I think there are 3 things we should do.
    1. End the war on drugs. A majority of homicides are drug and gang related. Treating drug addiction as an addiction not a crime would do more then any gun control law to reduce homicides and even "gun homicides"
    2. Stop wasting money on gun control that does little if anything to reduce violent crime, instead use money wasted on gun control and the drug war to improve mental health services.
    3. Also use money currently wasted on gun control and the war on drugs to invest in programs for at risk kids.

    Do these 3 things and we can have very measurable results in making society safer. Gun control at best would just change how crimes are committed.

    The point is you can't prevent someone from committing a violent crime by addressing how people have been committing crimes, you prevent them by addressing why they are committing crimes.
    Last edited by Bad Monkey; 08-26-2019 at 07:55 AM.

  8. #38
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Monkey View Post
    French guy,
    As pointed out we have a people problem. What is happening by focusing on guns we are not focusing on the things we could do to reduce incidents of violent crime, including mass murders. Programs that target at risk kids have been shown to have measurable results in reducing violent crime and homicide rates. Gun control has not been as effective if effective at all. It's fair to point out that gun control advocates don't talk about reducing homicide rates only reducing gun homicides.

    If we are going to be serious about addressing the problem, I think there are 3 things we should do.
    1. End the war on drugs. A majority of homicides are drug and gang related. Treating drug addiction as an addiction not a crime would do more then any gun control law to reduce homicides and even "gun homicides"
    2. Stop wasting money on gun control that does little if anything to reduce violent crime, instead use money wasted on gun control and the drug war to improve mental health services.
    3. Also use money currently wasted on gun control and the war on drugs to invest in programs for at risk kids.

    Do these 3 things and we can have very measurable results in making society safer. Gun control at best would just change how crimes are committed.

    The point is you can't prevent someone from committing a violent crime by addressing how people have been committing crimes, you prevent them by addressing why they are committing crimes.
    Not sure these are the answer either.
    First we have to get everyone in the world to agree on the same value of life for all.
    Then we need to get everyone to agree on what is "Right" and "Wrong".
    THEN... we need to convince everyone that they all have to THINK the SAME.
    No more believing they are being discriminated against no matter what.

    After that, we can ban bad behavior.

  9. #39
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ingham county
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    Not sure these are the answer either.
    First we have to get everyone in the world to agree on the same value of life for all.
    Then we need to get everyone to agree on what is "Right" and "Wrong".
    THEN... we need to convince everyone that they all have to THINK the SAME.
    No more believing they are being discriminated against no matter what.

    After that, we can ban bad behavior.
    We'll never get everyone on board with recognizing equal value of life. That's why there is nothing we can do to end violent crimes and bring homicide rates down to zero.
    What we can do is address some of the behaviors that lead to not caring about the value of life. It's not easy, nor will it change everyone on a bad path to a better path. What it can and does do is put more people especially kids that are on a bad path onto a better one. No silver bullets here, if it was easy ever6would be doing it. However it will be more effective and a better use of resources then more gun laws to address violent crimes.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter