the right to bear arms in modern times

[bossy22]

I have seen that many anti-gunners claim that if the constitution was written today that the right to bear arms wouldnt be included. I posted this in another topic but i will post this here

from the florida state constitution
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

This provision (the right to bear arms) was ratified in 1990


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Cons...


here is another one
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.
this was from alaska- the amended part is the second sentance about it being an individual right- they did this to clear up a few court cases
and here is another link http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1 This part was ratified in 1994

[Parche]

1. As Long As They Bear Legs Also

:hi:

[Ano Genitus]

2. When will these anti-gunners learn!

The main thing they should learn is that the people they dare to oppose own guns.

[EricTeri]

3. Try to remember...

...we're in a post-9/11 world, so we need to have more restrictions. :puke:



yes, that was sarcastic

[bossy22]

6. remember

when schumer went up in front of the senate and proclaimed that the assault weapon ban was our biggest defense against terrorists

[Tejas]

9. I hate remembering

Schumer.

My apologies for going off-topic, but the 1st thing that comes to mind is his disrectful looks/attitude towards Hupp as she recounted the events at Luby's in Killeen. I simply cannot fathom what value his constituents find in him, much less him claiming to even know which end of a gun to point.

[bossy22]

11. who knows

my state elected him only because he has a D next to his name. I can't stand the guy either- btw did i mention he also has a NYC carry permit? Mr. no one needs guns for self defense

[razors edge]

12. Oh, he knows which end

and he likes it too.



He wants your guns, they are bad, his guns are good don't you know?

[ORDagnabbit]

4. personally I think we should arm bears too.. it'd be more sporting. n/t

[Lex1775]

5. No need! True story...

An ex-boss of mine went Black Bear hunting few years back. He ends up shooting a black bear which falls behind a felled tree. Ex-Boss is a short, stocky guy, so he has to hoist himself over the tree. He does this headfirst. Apparently the bear decided that it wasn't going out like that. It's last earthly act was to reach one big paw up and take a swipe at Ex-Boss just as shoulders and head cleared the tree. Damn near killed him. He has four MASSIVE claw scars that run from his left shoulder, across his spine, up the back of his neck and end around his ear. The bear claws came within tenths of an inch of severing his spine in two places, and missed the artery on the right side of his neck by less than an inch. I don't think he ever hunted bears again.

[L1A1Rocker]

7. Well it is in there

It is the supreme law of the land like it or not. There is NO provision to ignore things that are no longer Political Correct. There is however an amendment process to remove it if you wish to.

Of course I think the reason no one is talking about removing it is because that could cause some real problems in this country. The kind this country has not seen in about 100 years.

[Lex1775]

8. Those problems would probably seem mild by the kind of problems that we'd have now

[L1A1Rocker]

14. I agree

100%. If the anti's really knew how much ordnance was out there in civilian hands I believe they would all die collectively of heart failure.

[Tejas]

10. There is a lot of talk like that

in Gen. Disc. but the posters usually harp that the 2nd should "just be repealed". They spit it out as if they think it would be as easy as ordering up Domino's.

Does everyone simply think that whatever their heart wishes is just a mouse-click away nowadays?

:shrug:

[krispos42]

13. Just repealing it isn't enough...

Because it's probably also protected under the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments as well. The new amendment, call it the 28th Amdenment, would have to both repeal the Second AND specifically state that no individual right to keep and bear arms is recognized nor protected by the Constitution.

[L1A1Rocker]

16. Correct

The right to arms existed before the constitution. I was amazed that the DC circuit court acknowledged that in there summation.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. I believe it.

"Does everyone simply think that whatever their heart wishes is just a mouse-click away nowadays?"

I think you nailed right there. I also think a big part of the problem is that the constitution is not tough in schools anymore. If it was, those folks would understand that the amendment process is a very difficult thing to see through.

[EricTeri]

17. You've certainly got that right...

I've talked to a frightening number of people who seem to think that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in Congress.