I know this is from 4chan, but I see it every time I go to the weapon forum there and it fits. It's the first image thousands see when they hit that forum....so why do people still not get it
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Accidental shootings in both North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana Gun Shows
- Thread starter MightySanta
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Well said.
By making it known, just what the media is doing right now and instead of making an emphasis how EVIL guns are now days, they could remind us how important safety is.
Instead of "BE GREEN: recycle everything" make it "STAY SAFE; always treat a firearm like it's loaded, NO matter what."
"this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Did that go back to trial in a lower court? Did Kellogg ultimately win?
Have been somewhat following Heller vs DC and that made some serious waves that were appealed by many cities, thinking Gary, IN also. Their argument was that DC is a separate entity, not a city or state, so does not apply. Not meaning is under exclusive jurisdiction or congress either.
Can not remember the name for that either but only a couple places are like that including Indianapolis, In. Defination is an island of government with in a country or state something like that. Tried to search it out but not using the right keywords.
Do they have you people (lawyers) study the actual Constitution and the history behind it, or is it mostly about case law and precedence?
Here's where some of my views come from:
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution ...
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights came right out and PLAINLY STATED that they (those ratifying the Constitution) DID. NOT. TRUST. the federal government and in order TO prevent them (the federal government) from misconstruing (misinterpreting - one bad misinterpretation sets a bad precedence for ensuing equally bad case law) OR abusing (infringe upon our Rights) its (SPECIFIC. ENUMERATED. LIMITED.) powers (PLAINLY. STATED. IN. THE. CONSTITUTION.), that further declaratory (declaring - spellling out in plain English) AND restrictive (preventing from infringing) clauses (PLAINLY. WORDED. AMENDMENTS!) SHOULD. BE. ADDED!
If one spends only 20-30 minutes researching some of the gun quotes from the Founding Fathers, they can quickly get an understanding of their position on gun rights. I feel it is safe to assume that from this informed understanding of their views of our Natural Right to defend ourselves in a manner equal to those that would wish to infringe upon us, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to understand their corresponding views of the Rights of the Individual taking precedence over the heavily restricted (by the Constitution) federal government.
My
Do they have you people (lawyers) study the actual Constitution and the history behind it, or is it mostly about case law and precedence?
Here's where some of my views come from:
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution ...
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights came right out and PLAINLY STATED that they (those ratifying the Constitution) DID. NOT. TRUST. the federal government and in order TO prevent them (the federal government) from misconstruing (misinterpreting - one bad misinterpretation sets a bad precedence for ensuing equally bad case law) OR abusing (infringe upon our Rights) its (SPECIFIC. ENUMERATED. LIMITED.) powers (PLAINLY. STATED. IN. THE. CONSTITUTION.), that further declaratory (declaring - spellling out in plain English) AND restrictive (preventing from infringing) clauses (PLAINLY. WORDED. AMENDMENTS!) SHOULD. BE. ADDED!
If one spends only 20-30 minutes researching some of the gun quotes from the Founding Fathers, they can quickly get an understanding of their position on gun rights. I feel it is safe to assume that from this informed understanding of their views of our Natural Right to defend ourselves in a manner equal to those that would wish to infringe upon us, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to understand their corresponding views of the Rights of the Individual taking precedence over the heavily restricted (by the Constitution) federal government.
My
Thanks and do agree the framers built in checks and balances for that very reason while at the same time were very specific about what they thought was important.
Still wishing I'd have payed better attention in school, never to late to catch up, IMO.
It comes down to an individual taking responsibility for their own actions. We don't need anymore laws, or programs from the goverment. It also comes down to the good guys follow the rules the bad guys don't. My kids will have firearms training, it's my responsibility, just as it is my responsibility to preserve it.
Do you go to Colts games and cheer for the Patriots? Obama loves people like you.
I think Loc n Load has it right. There is a big difference between an accidental discharge and a negligent discharge. when you buy a chainsaw you should be familiar with that tool so you don't cut off your foot. do I need a gov't sponsored safety class for a chainsaw?
Basic gun safety: when picking up or be handed a firearm always keep it pointed in a safe direction with finger off the trigger until the site is on target and check that it is unloaded and clear.
Basic gun safety: when picking up or be handed a firearm always keep it pointed in a safe direction with finger off the trigger until the site is on target and check that it is unloaded and clear.
Constitution " the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" PERIOD. The framers of the constitution wrote volumes about the constitution and what it meant. Please don't show ignorance simply because the words 'concealed carry' do not appear in the text. Do some homework and read what the framers wrote, or better yet I doubt you have even read the entire constitution itself.
Walt_Jabsco
Sharpshooter
Where'd you go to law school, Walt?
You know, I've been thinking about this. While I do think I'm fairly well informed about this topic (namely Constitutional issues), I'm by no means an expert. Yes, I've nearly completed a history degree. Yes, I specialize in US history. But realistically, I don't yet specialize in constitutional issues. I primarily focus on the 1830s through Reconstruction.
So I decided to ask an expert. I sent an e-mail to an acquaintance, Dr. Paul Finkelman. Dr. Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Government Law Center. He's largely considered one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country. I asked him the following:
Do you think the 2nd Amendment was intended to grant individuals the right to carry concealed firearms? Moreover, do you think the government mandating safety training would be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?
His reply: "I have many friends who are hunters, and I love the venison they cook for me. I am an advocate of reasonable and responsible firearms use and regulation. But as a matter of Constitutional law, it seems to me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons.
The second and third words of the amendment are "well regulated." I think mandatory training, licensing, insurance, registration, and gun cabinets are all constitutional, as are background checks and bans for various kinds of individuals (not only felons). I also think a "ban" on long guns would be stupid and politically impossible and a disaster for the environment. Given the deer population we need more hunters or more wolves! I think there is probably a 9th Amendment to hunt and fish -- all within regulations and rules and seasons."
While his comments are slightly contradictory (if the amendment has nothing to with private ownership, why would "well regulated" apply to such issues) Dr. Finkelman included a copy of his 2006 paper, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective" which largely clarifies his views. The paper is a solid 30 pages long, so I can't copy it here, but please, read it. The full text is available here. Of particular note is section VIII, regarding the debate surrounding the bill of rights.
