Stop all laws that violate are 2nd Ammendment, what we can own, how much we can buy, end any unconstitutional laws against the 2nd ammendment.
I would be more specific than that text.
-
Universal concealed carry permit similar to driver’s license.
-
Exemption to #1, constitutional carry if one is within one’s state.
-
Abolish all bans on semi-automatic firearms based on brand, features, looks, and any superficial or material basis.
-
Abolish limit on magazine capacity. Studies showed the magazine capacity has no correlation with crime.
-
Abolish ATF.
-
No additional specific tax on firearms, accessories, attachments. No “insurance coverage” requirements.
-
Abolish prohibition on self-made firearms.
-
Abolish gun-free zones.
-
Legislators are personally liable for introducing and passing bills contrary to the US constitution and established SCOTUS rulings.
-
Self-defense protection: the burden of proof is on the perpetrator/criminal if they were shot or seriously harmed or killed if they are at a place they are not supposed to be or while doing activities that are illegal.
24 Likes
My only amendment request to this is the removal of the 1st item. The second Amendment did not endow the government with permission to issue or revoke permits or licenses on rights for any reason. The Tenth Amendment reinforces that. Taking that a step further, the Supreme Court ruled in Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham Alabama in 1969 that if the government takes a right and converts it into a privilege and issues a license and fee therfore, the citizen is free to ignore both the license and the fee and engage in the right with impunity.
8 Likes
While I do agree with you that Constitutionally it should be that way but… when I took my carry test years ago we had one guy in the group that when he shot to qualify he had bullets going every direction you can imagine and failed to hit the target at even 3 yards. Is there maybe something like that should be done? I see it like a car…everyone should be able to carry in public (or drive in public) but let’s first just make sure you know what your’e doing. I mean it’s a tricky thing because yes the constitution guarantees it but I think we all know someone that is a hazard when they carry in public.
3 Likes
YESSS YESSS YESSS ! New Jersey is the worst state. You have to literally go through hoops to get a firearm and then you gotta get a different permit for each handgun that you own! This is absolutely lunacy. I am all for this 
Michael, I agree with you that’s why I include that it be like a driver’s license.
In the grand scheme of things, a “license” here is not like CA’s “may issue” where the determination is based solely on a Sheriff’s whim even if you are proficient, but rather a “shall issue” when it is determined one is not about to shoot a bystander instead of a perp. One can always practice until proficient. But it would not handicap one from carrying CONS Carry once in one’s own state.
The right to bear arms is our right not a privilege, unfortunately theirs people that shouldnt have driver license or a car, and the same is for guns, there are some people that shouldnt have a firearm but we can not take that right away from them for any reason, unless they have lost their rights or are not an American citizen. Our rights should never be infringed upon, all of them.
1 Like
Also abolish ANY computer generated list of buys or registration.
2 Likes
Should be criminal background checks, age restriction, and some form of mental evaluation. Let’s look at what other countries with gun laws with low incident rates are doing.
I do not disagree with a competency test, but such still cannot infringe on their Rights. My biggest driver on Rights is that they came from God at Creation when He endowed us with the Right to Free Will choice. We have the right to choose right or wrong. Even to kill in cold blood. But that is inseparable from the responsibility that goes with the exercise of that right. That’s the gravity of that guy in your class that can’t control his gun. He knows this. If, knowing his issue, he still chooses to carry and hurts someone, he alone bears the responsibility of making that right regardless of what that might cost him. Add to that that he knew ahead of time of this problem and still chose to do it. Now it’s actually malice with forethought. Liability for any wrongdoing with fore-knowledge that it was wrong carries an even higher penalty.
We are those background checks. By punishing those who do physical violence to others in a correcting manner, that will discourage their participation in such things in the future. This is based on one primary premise: make the punishment severe enough the first time that they won’t do it again. Very easy, straightforward and effective.
We as the People and the government lack the right or authority to stand in the way of another’s free will exercise of right to stop them, however their exercise of that free will choice is NOT without repercussions if they create a physical victim. But it has to be on an individual, person-by-person basis and there must a physical, provable thing that actually happened, or the evidence be so great as to be undeniable before we can stand in the way. ALL rights work this way.
Agree to disagree. Your solution is after the fact. Too late, and would never stop mental ill people.
Unfortunately, we can’t. That’s not our job. It’s theirs. That’s the problem with free will as endowed by God. It was given to us without restriction and must be respected the same way. It is the unequivocal right of everyone to choose right or wrong AND to deal with any fallout or reap any rewards for those actions. Freedom is a beautiful but sobering reality.
1 Like
Amen, brother Smith. I’ll vote for you to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — because that’s where all the distortions of the Second Amendment originate. In 1792, our founders made a simple, crystal-clear, and unequivocal declaration protecting the God-given right of every American to keep and bear arms … and they pronounced that right when they said it “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment consists of 27 words, and none of them authorize the government to place restrictions or limitations on gun possession. Every limitation on your gun rights is purely a fictional creation of the Supreme Court in violation of the absolute mandate in the second phrase of the Second Amendment …“shall not be infringed.” The Bill of Rights creates explicit limitations on the power of the government to impose burdens on your inherent, fundamental rights as a human being - among them is the right to defend and protect yourself with firearms. But even though the framers made the protections in the Second Amendment “absolute” by using the words …“shall not be infringed” … the Supreme Court has declared that no constitutional rights are absolute … and they are all subject to reasonable restrictions and regulation by the government. It’s important to take note that the government’s power to ignore an absolute prohibition in the Bill of Rights is not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution. The framers and the people of the colonies who voted to adopt the Constitution and the Second Amendment told the government it did not have the right to regulate gun ownership … but then that government awarded itself the right to ignore the framers, the people, and the text of the Constitution! The Supreme Court usurped the power of constitutional review in Marbury v. Madison. In other words, the government gave itself the right to ignore absolute restrictions placed on its right to regulate gun ownership. Still today, Justice Thomas and his kinsmen on the high court believe they have the right to read thousands of words into the Second Amendment that are clearly not there. They have said such things as “only law-abiding people” can own a gun. Ironically, none of the men who actually drafted the Second Amendment were “law-abiding”. They had all just participated in High Treason against the sovereign authority over the colonies, King George. Moreover, concurrent with the adoption of the Second Amendment in 1792, the brand-new Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. According to that contemporaneous enactment, not only was it permissible for all men in the new United States to have a gun … it was “mandatory”. The Act demanded that every man over a certain age must own a gun of a specific type (comparable to the individual firearms carried by members of the military of the era), and they had to possess a specified amount of ammunition for that weapon. There were no limitations in that Act regarding any man’s past criminal history, or his general civic responsibility, or his church attendance, or his “law-abidingness.” It was nearly 150 years after the Second Amend was adopted before government granted itself the right to tell American precisely who could have a gun and who could not.
Ironically, today the same Supreme Court that violated the Constitution by approving government restriction of gun possession, now says it really doesn’t know what the Second Amendment truly means at all. In a series of opinions (Heller, McDonald, NYSPRA v. Bruen, Rahimi, and now Range v. Garland, the Supremes have declared that they can’t say who can and cannot have a gun… and they don’t want to make the decision (e.g. the GVR in Range). As a result, the John Robert’s Supreme Court has effectively made the Second Amendment illusory. They shredder the absolute protection created by the framers, and they have relegated the Bill of Rights down to the “Bill of Suggestions” … akin to the fabled Pirates Code.
Well, I’m from Texas, and we have our own traditions… and one of them is “Come and Take It!”
1 Like
Please include a mandatory, hands-on gun range safety course for all High Schools. I would think at the same age for all student’s best way, example would be all 10th graders,
1 Like
Doesn’t matter. It’s a Constitutional right, doesn’t say as long as your trained.
As a remedy to your concern, we should be allowed to have tax deductions for fire arm training and first aid training. Of course limited to a certain amount a year to make it palatable. All voluntary of course
Remove restrictions for felons to own firearms. This too is unconstitutional.
1 Like
Well i kind of agree, but what if the felony was for a violent crime with a firearm, i would have to say he cant have his guns back, but yes there are some non violent felonies
Do felons obey laws?
1 Like
@KeithNelson. You might have a point. But I still don’t want a family member of mine being shot when a person with a gun is trying to shoot a criminal 10 yards away. That is irresponsibility. And while, to your point, he bears the burden by himself, I don’t want to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas and Easter Sundays in the cemetery. I doubt you want to either.