Pennsylvania lawsuit tests high court's ruling that lifts D.C. gun ban

[chesire17201]

is there a way to keep an eye on this case as it works through the court?

[wewo]

DOnt wanna lose ur gun rights? Dont commit felonies! A felon with a legal right to possess a handgun is a scary thought. If you committed even one serious crime (i.e., felony) I dont trust you with a gun. Frankly, to me, that is a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

[edstephan]

Originally Posted by wewo
DOnt wanna lose ur gun rights? Dont commit felonies! A felon with a legal right to possess a handgun is a scary thought. If you committed even one serious crime (i.e., felony) I dont trust you with a gun. Frankly, to me, that is a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

Well wewo I have corrected the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania to accommodate your views.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except Machine Guns, Bad looking rifles, and Pistols that hold more then 10 rounds) shall not be infringed. (except who we designate as acceptable).

The right of the citizens to bear arms (except Machine Guns, Bad looking rifles, and Pistols that hold more then 10 rounds) in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (except who we designate as acceptable)

I must have missed the caveats’ in the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution where is says “except who we don’t like”. The minute you do this you turn a RIGHT into a privilege. A privilege has limitations attached to it.
Natural Law has always been once you paid the dues for a crime your rights were restored.
The several Constitutions have already been usurped more then they should have been.
What will it take to get back to the Original Constitutions?
I’m afraid we have gone down the path so far, to return to Original Constitutions will be a major upheaval in this country as people now a day’s have not a clue in self reliance.
I must be old fashioned but that is my .02¢ worth
Ed

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by wewo

DOnt wanna lose ur gun rights? Dont commit felonies! A felon with a legal right to possess a handgun is a scary thought. If you committed even one serious crime (i.e., felony) I dont trust you with a gun. Frankly, to me, that is a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

You could accidently hit someone and kill them with your car and be charged with vehicular manslaughter(homicide) which if i remember correctly is a felony. Guess what your just lost your gun rights because someone stepped out in front of your car. Its those 12 people on the jury that will be deciding your gun rights and other rights for the rest of your life. And all you have to be doing is not paying attention to the speed limit and end up in that accident and your done.

If i remember correctly reckless driving(reckless endangerment?) charge is also a felony. So get charged with one of those and that also disqualifies you from owning a gun.

If your kid commits a felony guess what you cant own guns in your own home anymore if hes living with you.(Happened to a friend his younger brother robbed a supermarket at gun point. His dad can't have guns in the house. This may or may not be the case i haven't found the laws on this one.)

The term felony isn't a good dis-qualifier anymore.

[pex]

Originally Posted by wewo

DOnt wanna lose ur gun rights? Dont commit felonies! A felon with a legal right to possess a handgun is a scary thought. If you committed even one serious crime (i.e., felony) I dont trust you with a gun. Frankly, to me, that is a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

Is a PFA a felony? Did you know they usurped the rights of a new class when they said non-felony simple assault on a family member voided the right to possess new firearms, even though people convicted and sentenced before that change existed are now subject to the restriction? Is it a felony to be mentally incompetent?

How long until we say "Don't want to lose your rights? Don't commit a summary offense?" It's coming to a society near you.

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by Kenshin

If i remember correctly reckless driving(reckless endangerment?) charge is also a felony. So get charged with one of those and that also disqualifies you from owning a gun.

Maybe there are different levels of "reckless endangering" but it was an M2 when I was charged with it.

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by pex

How long until we say "Don't want to lose your rights? Don't commit a summary offense?" It's coming to a society near you.

It's already here in the form of a sherriff or police chief making a "character judgement"

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by BobbySomers

Maybe there are different levels of "reckless endangering" but it was an M2 when I was charged with it.

I think your right i may be mistaken with that one i thought there was one of those charges similar to that which was a felony. I could be wrong.

[JDePietro]

Short on time and can't read all the replies, so in short my responce may or may not have been stated and I express my apologies to anyone with the same panoz.

The "fire in a crowd" theorory is used to set the small mind at ease. When you really break down and analyse the implications you will draw a completely different picture.

People are born naturally with the ability to speak and converse with others, no court can really take this basic function away. Sure they could cut out your tounge and chop off your hands and feet but at the end of the day you can still point a bloody stump in the general direction of your intended subject. That in a very basic means is communication and that was a right shown by the constitution to be ordained to us by our creator.

Now that we have established that communication cannot be removed, it is easier to understand that no matter what your action you will always have the freedom of communication. You can yell whatever you please in a crowd and you may yell whatever you like in a crowd. This with a little thought is not hard to establish. Some will argue that you cannot because the action will have an equal or oppisite reaction. Will you get in trouble for causing alarm when there is an absense of one? Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the right of being able to do so.

You have the Right to peaceable assembly right along with the freedom of speech. You may gather with as many people as you like as many times as you want. Humans tend to be hearding animals so this works in our favor and all of the rhetoric from my previous paragraph can be used in this one.

You have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself and country. Everybody on this board can discuss this topic in and out.

But the main point in the arguement "Yelling Fire in a Crowd." Is that having the ability is wrong. And this is were that arguement falls apart.

If you are carrying a gun and you walk into a store and start shooting people you have abused the right.

If you assemble a hundred people and than march on washington and loot and pillage, you have abused the right.

If you scream fire in a building that is not on fire (And stupid people run) you have abused the right.

The regulation only applies once you have used a right in an improper manor and caused risk or injury to the people around you. Thus it proves you cannot regulate the right only the person in charge of the right. If someone commits said act than you can regulate all you want but everyone will still have the ability to say whatever they want wherever they choose. This applies to all rights as we view them, this is why punishing the individual is so effective and punishing the whole is not.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by wewo

DOnt wanna lose ur gun rights? Dont commit felonies! A felon with a legal right to possess a handgun is a scary thought. If you committed even one serious crime (i.e., felony) I dont trust you with a gun. Frankly, to me, that is a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

I guess you weren't thinking about cases like this when you made your statement:

http://www.gunowners.org/olofson.htm

Lending a friend a common semi-auto rifle that ends up malfunctioning is now a federal felony. Thirty months in prison. No guns for life. What do you think of that?

Personally, I don't trust the gov't with regulating our important constitutional rights. Felons can already get all the guns they want so I'd rather take my chances allowing felons to possess guns, instead of allowing the gov't to regulate my rights as it presently does. In a lot of ways, felons are more predictable and trustworthy. Few felons will tell you they are there to help, to solve your problems, to make your life better, etc. Many felons and the gov't will, however, screw you over royally if you let them. With the gov't, you have few choices. At least with felons you know what you're dealing with.