Gun Control

[AWells]

quote:

---

I am just glad we no longer have to cross the border for tattoos.

---

And all my friends up here in the tattooing industry aren't so glad

[ 09-28-2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

[Raven]

quote:

---

Oh well, about time to pose another question...

Concealed carry permits... good or evil?

---

Well, I would say that theyÔÇÖre better then not being able to carry concealed at all, but I doubt they help reduce crime any more then other types of gun control (criminals, after all, neednÔÇÖt bother with a concealed carry permit). So the question becomes whatÔÇÖs the point, and the only answer I can come up with is to raise money for the government. Besides, it is unconstitutional (after all, the second amendment specifies the right to bear arms, not just own them, and most states consider walking around with a visible gun illegal).

[AWells]

quote:

---

Besides, it is unconstitutional (after all, the second amendment specifies the right to bear arms, not just own them, and most states consider walking around with a visible gun illegal).

---

Actually, I luck out living in a state that permits open carry without a permit. So, I don't see the logic in applying for a concealed carry permit... if somebody saw me carrying a gun I can always argue that it wasn't concealed and thus perfectly legal (after all, if it was concealed they wouldn't have seen it, now would they? )

[Guest]

I don't mind concealed weapons permits too much.

You are all right of course that it is a 2nd amendment right, but believe it or not, BEFORE the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was actually just for the Federal government, it did not mean a thing to the states, although MOST states had some sort of right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions.

Most of those states, except for Vermont, had a disclaimer as far as concealed carry was concerned. Without permission of the state, you could NOT carry concealed. Vermont of course is do whatever you want with your firearm, as long as you do not commit a crime with it.

Oregon and Washington both have that little disclaimer in their constitution, and because I believe in the true meaning of the constitution, I do not mind the background check and permit for concealed carry. Although, if the supreme court ever gets hold of a decent 2nd amendment case, that of course will go out the window and concealed carry will no longer be regulated. The 14th amendment made sure of that.

Now, if we can get a few more REAL judges on the supreme court that are TRUE constitutionalists, then we wil be talking a load of changes throughout the entire country.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Besides, it is unconstitutional (after all, the second amendment specifies the right to bear arms, not just own them, and most states consider walking around with a visible gun illegal).

---

Now that's interesting. Ya can't walk around brazenly displaying one (usually, per Livyak's post)) or people think you're ready for a fight but yet you can't conceal one without being suspected of criminal activity.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Most of those states, except for Vermont, had a disclaimer as far as concealed carry was concerned. Without permission of the state, you could NOT carry concealed. Vermont of course is do whatever you want with your firearm, as long as you do not commit a crime with it.

---

If there's a disclaimer in NH, it's not in the constitution.

2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire

quote:

---

All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obt aining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

---

All regulations imposing restrictions of carrying arms takes place in statutes outside the constitution, namely Chapter 159:6.

[Guest]

As I said, "most" states.

Washington and Oregon of course are 2 of those, new Hampshire's concealed carry look to be a shall issue from the way it is stated. Still, according to the way I read that, Concealed carry licenses are unconstitutional, to the state constitution, as well as the federal.

Words mean things, and politicians are so good at changing meanings to fit their own meanings of the time.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

In Canada, you are NOT allowed self defense, if you kill someone with a firearm in self defense, just as in Britain, you are going to jail for murder.

---

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/38291.html

quote:

---

Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(

he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

(

he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

© he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Provocation

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Preventing assault

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

---

quote:

---

In Canada, you are a subject, not a citizen

---

I don't get it. What do you mean by subject?

quote:

---

In Canada, if you are caught with a firearm, you are going to jail

---

Yes, unless you have the paperwork allowing you to possess weapons

quote:

---

Handguns are illegal, unless you are a competitor of some sort or have a special permit from the government, in other words you had better be Police or you're gonna go away for a while. Rifles, you need a hunting permit and while carrying the weapon you have to follow VERY strict guidelines.

---

False. You can own hunting rifles, and you can move them around as much as you need (this doesn't mean keep them as concealed weapons. You need to register those rifles though.

Most handguns are restricted, which means you need a permit to get one of those, and must be registered at the police. You need permission to have the right to move them around.

Any rifle with more than 5 bullet mag, or handgun with more than a 10 bullet mag is prohibited, same for any kind of semi-automatic, automatic weapon, assault shotguns and most of the other weapon type.

Weapons basically deemed "not for killing", such as bb guns, paintballs, blank fire, etc are not called firearms, thus are not illegal. I can buy those at my local wal-mart, as long as I can prove I'm 18 years old or more. A friend of mine has a bb gun rifle.

[ 09-29-2002, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[AWells]

quote:

---

new Hampshire's concealed carry look to be a shall issue from the way it is stated.

---

Technically it is, but since there's no hard definitions of what constitutes a reason for denial, it leaves a major loop hole for anti-gun types to not issue carry permits in thier town. For instance, I'm considered too dangerous to have one because I bounced 4 checks when I was a teenager (Well, at least that's my assumption since the only thing they say for reasons is "Unsuitable Person" and that's the only thing I have on my record). And yes, I could appeal it and probably win, but it's not worth the expense (especially since I'm a poor broke college student... lol).

Anyways, there was a movement to push a bill for Vermont style carry (since Vermont is our neighbor), but I don't know what's happening with that. As it stands our current governor is anti-gun and pro-tax and I'll be glad when she's out of office. Anybody who wants state income and sales tax and hates guns just doesn't deserve to even be a NH resident, let alone the Governor.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In Canada, you are a subject, not a citizen

---

I don't get it. What do you mean by subject?

---

I don't know much about Canadian government, but I'm assuming it's based roughly on the British model. Unlike, the US, the British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens. Though they enjoy many of the same freedoms as the US, their rights are not protected and can be taken away by the government at any time.

[ 09-29-2002, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

[Guest]

I just love Canada, NOT!!

I wouldn't live there on a bet...

Fact of the matter is, at the rate the US is moving toward the Canadian model, I may have to move to Idaho or Montana to keep my consitutional rights. They actually think that document means something.

Sorry EP5, when you have to register your weapons, the confiscation is next. That is what will happen very soon in Canada. The confiscation of ALL weaponry, just as they have done in Australia, and Britain.

Your crime rate is high now, wait until the only ones with weapons are the criminals.

I'd say come south, but by the time you did that, it's gonna be down here and it's gonna hit the fan, so you may want to stay up there for the next 5 years or so to see how things shake out.

[AWells]

I can't see gun confiscation happening on a national level in the US. Given the length of time it takes to train a BATF agent, they'd never be able to keep up with the casualties.

[Raven]

Oh dear, that is scary. IÔÇÖm once more very glad I donÔÇÖt live in Canada.

Is the point of this to protect the assailant or the victum? ItÔÇÖs not as clear as it should be.

Furthermore, if IÔÇÖm reading this correctly, you cannot defend yourself from someone who you ÔÇ£provokeÔÇØ (which seams to include insulting gesture and words) unless they intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

[ 09-29-2002, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Your crime rate is high now, wait until the only ones with weapons are the criminals.

---

LOL! I alreayd showed you that the crimerates are lower in Canada. Must I go get those numbers again, like I did in the 2 last gun control threads?

quote:

---

I don't know much about Canadian government, but I'm assuming it's based roughly on the British model. Unlike, the US, the British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens. Though they enjoy many of the same freedoms as the US, their rights are not protected and can be taken away by the government at any time.

---

I doubt the US government wouldn't do that to American citizens if deemed necessary, so I don't see the difference.

quote:

---

British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens

---

Now that bothers me. How's that possible? I don't understand.

[AWells]

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't know much about Canadian government, but I'm assuming it's based roughly on the British model. Unlike, the US, the British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens. Though they enjoy many of the same freedoms as the US, their rights are not protected and can be taken away by the government at any time.

---

I doubt the US government wouldn't do that to American citizens if deemed necessary, so I don't see the difference.

---

In the United States the rights of the individual are protected by the amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. If for instance, Congress was to pass a law stating that police have the right to stop and strip search anybody at thier leisure, the Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional and it would no longer be law since it violates 4th Amendment rights protecting the people from unlawful search.

quote:

---

quote:

---

British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens

---

Now that bothers me. How's that possible? I don't understand.

---

In the British system individual rights are protected by nothing more than common law in most cases. In contrast to the US system, there's no check to say "Hey... you can't pass that law authorizing random strip searches."

A few things being proposed by Prime Minister Blair in the UK that would never fly in the US...

Eliminating the right to trial by jury

Eliminating the right to remain silent

Eliminating the right against self-incrimination

Eliminating the right to confront your accuser

Eliminating the protection from double jeopardy (being tried for the same crime more than once)

So, the British government doesn't acknowledge the rights of it's citizens, it only grants or takes away privilages from it's subjects.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

If for instance, Congress was to pass a law stating that police have the right to stop and strip search anybody at thier leisure, the Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional and it would no longer be law since it violates 4th Amendment rights protecting the people from unlawful search.

---

Well it wouldn't pass here. We do have a constitution here, but we are much less aware of it. However, the law needs to be approved by the different parts of the government, including the senate, and the supreme court can declares laws unconstitutional as necessary.

The government tried to pass an anti-terrorist law where the government could declare martial law within an area without a clear and present danger of some sort, but it hardly passed the house of commons (even though the current government party has a majority of sieges), and it had no chance of going out of the senate. So I think we're safe.

[ 09-29-2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Guest $iLk]

I refuse to get a conceal carry permit even though it is mandated per county here.

I don't think it is constitutional, and if anyone wants to pass laws that make what I'm doing one day legal, and the next day illegal, they can kiss my ***.

Where is your line in the sand?

If something you enjoy is legal (hunting, fishing, etc.) and the next day your state passes a law declaring it illegal, or regulating it in such a way that it isn't profitable - do you roll over or do you continue as you always have?

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

The government tried to pass an anti-terrorist law where the government could declare martial law within an area without a clear and present danger of some sort, but it hardly passed the house of commons (even though the current government party has a majority of sieges), and it had no chance of going out of the senate. So I think we're safe.[/QB]

---

Canada has a big enough military to declare martial law?!?! Your KIDDING!!! I thought Canada relied on us to protect them.

quote:

---

I don't think it is constitutional, and if anyone wants to pass laws that make what I'm doing one day legal, and the next day illegal, they can kiss my ***.

---

What's the Supreme's Court justification for allowing concealed carry permits? I'd apply for a permit, not go on without one, but i'm wondering if you ever got arrested for it, you'd have grounds to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

[AWells]

quote:

---

What's the Supreme's Court justification for allowing concealed carry permits? I'd apply for a permit, not go on without one, but i'm wondering if you ever got arrested for it, you'd have grounds to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

---

Not sure if the US Supreme Court has ruled either way on the issue. Since it falls under the 2nd Amendment it would be possible to appeal it that far, assuming you had good legal counsel. In practice, however, any one of the lower courts could torpedo your case before it made it that far. Since most people who are arrested would rather clear themselves, they'd probably take the more likely to succceed approach of supressing the gun from evidence at trial (it becomes impossible to prove the crime of carrying without a permit if they can't even mention that you were carrying anything).

[Guest]

quote:

---

What's the Supreme's Court justification for allowing concealed carry permits? I'd apply for a permit, not go on without one, but i'm wondering if you ever got arrested for it, you'd have grounds to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

---

In all honesty, the problem is that most people do not have the cash to fight it to the SCOTUS, but the NRA, and other groups do.

They WILL NOT touch a case that has a chance of losing. If they are going to take a case to the supreme court, they do NOT want to chance a loss, because if it loses, we are ALL in deep KAKA.

When some socialist gets totally moronic, which will be soon, I assure you, then we will have a SCOTUS case and every Gun control law will unravel at the seams and we will all be better off.

[Cruis.In]

from what I remember...Britain doesn't have a written constitution...but something called a white book.

[Or]

The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary

Magna Carta n. (also Magna Charta ) the political charter which King John was forced to sign by his rebellious barons at Runnymede in 1215, The barons, discontented with John's high-handedness, were led by Archbishop Langton to frame a charter which effectively redefined the limits of royal power. Allthough the charter was often violated by medieval kings, it eventually came to be seen as the seminal document of English constitutional practice.

[Guest]

Just to bump this thread for a bit.

quote:

---

56 MILLION PEOPLE MURDERED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable

to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1934, one year after the end of Prohibition, the United States Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to create jobs for idle Alcohol Revenue agents. This law ultimately led to the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). In 1993, 86 members of a "religious cult" residing outside Waco, Texas were exterminated by the BATF because of unsubstantiated allegations that they had failed to purchase $200 tax stamps for certain firearms in their possession as required by the unconstitutional 1933 National Firearms Act. Congress is currently considering passage of additional unconstitutional gun control laws in response to a few widely celebrated acts of mass violence perpetrated by deranged individuals. It remains to be seen how many more innocent members of politically incorrect minority groups will be exterminated in the name of these unconstitutional laws.

HELP MAKE GENOCIDE SAFE FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD. SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL GUN CONTROL.

---

[ 10-14-2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]