What do you think is Constitutional?

[landon410]

"In states that have registration a felon can not be charged with failing to register a firearm because it they tried to they would be incriminating themselves. What good does registration do if only lawful citizen can be charged with failure to?
True, there are members of society that have no business being around firearms and we all know some that have never been in trouble a day in their life."

This I didn't know, its almost as if it was written with this in mind, to only affect law abiding citizens and to allow the dependant class to continue to do what they want.

[Gunscribe]

This I didn't know, its almost as if it was written with this in mind, to only affect law abiding citizens and to allow the dependant class to continue to do what they want.

The law provides that you can not be compelled to give evidence against yourself. A felon in possession of a firearm can be charged with such if he is caught with it, but he can not be convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm. If he tried to register it he would be giving evidence against himself.

I do know of some instances where a felon was initially charged with possession of an unregistered firearm, but I know of no felon that has ever been convicted on that charge.

As with most gun control laws the only ones they apply  to and the only ones that will grudgingly obey them are the law-abiding citizens.

Yes, there are some hold hands kumbya singers that believe the world would be a garden of Eden if all weapons were banned. These are the useful idiots of the power elite that want all guns controlled so that they can exercise unfettered power over the population they seek to dominate.

As firearms owners any concession we make enables the power elite to take even more.
                     
                  
                  
                     
                     
                     
                           

[Gunscribe]

http://sheriffjimwilson.com/2012/02/07/the-outlaw-turned-sheriff/

[justsomeguy]

Uhh.. I think the question was "What is Constitutional?" not, "How do you think the world should be?"

It's black and white. Shall NOT be infringed.

I don't care if you don't like it. That's what is says, that's what it means.

You got a problem with that? Change it.

[Ronvandyn]

It's black and white. Shall NOT be infringed.

Unfortunately the world is not black and white.  It just isn't, and believing otherwise is not rational. 

Neither is the subject of ownership by a prohibited person, there are states and places where this is a grey area and the 2nd Amendment (much as I love and adore both it and the folks who wrote it) is more than a little ambiguous when viewed from certain perspectives.  Not that your understand is lacking, but it’s obvious that other people have different opinions from their own perspectives.  If this were not true then there would be no need for this forum, the NRA, the SAF, or any of the other pro 2A organizations in our country.

Another way of looking at this is if the individual is the one making the decision to knowingly break the law then they are also the one making the decision to permanently curtail some of their own rights.  The Bill of Rights is about restricting what government can do, not about what citizens can do to themselves. 

By breaking the law in a fashion that allows for a felony charge could it not be argued that the individual is tacitly giving the government permission to curtail one’s personal freedoms?  I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that breaking the law opens the door for the government to enter/control certain areas of our lives or impose consequences for the decisions we make that the citizenry says are unacceptable.  One of those consequences currently is a permanent ban on the ownership of a firearm by a felon.   

[SS_N_NE]

impose consequences for the decisions we make that the citizenry says are unacceptable.

But, it seems to me that government is making the laws that "citizenry" has little to say about. I have voted for legislation that won by popular citizen vote...only to be ignored by government as they plow ahead for their quest of power and control often making law that directly conflicts with what "the people" want.
Stripping a person of rights and freedom does not make them law abiding. Telling a felon they can not posses firearms does nothing to prevent a felon from aquiring and using guns.  It may increase consequenses if caught but what has the law created?

[Gunscribe]

Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.

Felons owning guns is a recent invention that was spawned from the deaths of two Kennedys and a Malcolm. Signed by Johnson in 1968.

Turning back a speedometer = felony

Killing somebody = felony

So in essence a used car salesman gets the same life sentence that a murderer does. Now that's real American Justice for you.

Banning certain people from having guns is just gun owner approved go along to get along gun control.

Now there are even misdemeanors on the list and gun owners keep sucking up to the grabbers. Just because you are not in any ban category doesn't mean you won't be in the future.

Pretty soon failing to renew your registration in a timely manner will get you banned from owning a gun. Or letting your insurance lapse accidently. Holy crap if you are not responsible enough to manage your finances you certainly are not responsible to own a firearm.

Doubt me? It appears that is what may be happening to some Veterans through recommendations made by the V.A.

The grabbers are smart enough to know that they can not get all guns banned in one swooping law so for the last 50 years they have been doing it one little piece at a time and there is just too many gun owners that are happy to help them get the job done.

[farmerbob]

There are certain people that shouldn't be around guns yet all the laws on the books won't keep them out of their hands. Laws are for the law bidding not the lawless.

Gun control is about control. I don't need the very people that my tax money pays there salary taking liberties with my rights, the very rights they took an oath to uphold.

Gun control is based in lies and misinformation to make some feel good who are ruled by emotions rather than by facts as they freely give up there rights and want ours also. This is what we must fight.

[Ronvandyn]

Gun control is based in lies and misinformation to make some feel good who are ruled by emotions rather than by facts as they freely give up there rights and want ours also. This is what we must fight.

+1

[Ronvandyn]

But, it seems to me that government is making the laws that "citizenry" has little to say about. I have voted for legislation that won by popular citizen vote...only to be ignored by government as they plow ahead for their quest of power and control often making law that directly conflicts with what "the people" want.
Stripping a person of rights and freedom does not make them law abiding. Telling a felon they can not posses firearms does nothing to prevent a felon from aquiring and using guns.  It may increase consequenses if caught but what has the law created?

There is nothing in your comment that I can disagree with, not one thing. 

Yet it is the citizens responsibility to elect their representatives carefully, with knowledge and great consideration.  If government is making decisions we do not like then we elected the wrong representatives.  Us.  You me and the guy/gal next door.  From my perspective, here in Nebraska, we do a pretty good job electing the right people.  Not always, but in general they do what we elected them for and represent us in a manner that is not completely unacceptable.  In this day and age that is about the best we can ask for.  Electing someone based on a hand shake, a few commercials, and MAYBE a debate, is like trying to divine water in a desert.  Tough going.   I also wish that government did a better job, but wishing is not going to make it happen.