Bill of rights Re-write - Page 2

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-20-2004, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
Non-concur.

Crew served weapons are allowed.

They require the same proficiency as the small arms you delineated, and must be stored in multiple homes of the "crew", the ammo must be stored separately as well. Three members is the minimum crew. The weapon may only be placed in a ready to (dry) fire configuration for maintenance or crew drill, and may only be loaded with live ammunition on a permitted and properly safed range under the control of Federal or Militia officers.

Explosive possession is already permitted and regulated, and would require the same restrictions as stated above. Storage is limited to military approved ammunition storage magazines.

States receive a portion of their Federal revenue allocation based on the number of weapons proficient militia members and units.

Before you ask, there are no ranges cleared for a nuclear live fire, or private ownership of a weapon with a range greater than the range firing limits of respective ranges within the states.

The penalties for misuse or unsafe employment would be draconian, and there would likely be no second offenses. Big Boy's Toys, Big Boy Rules.

TR

I am a member of the militia, and there is no &^%$&^% way anyone is going to condition my right to defend myself against an oppressive regime on any type of competency or other requirements, particularly if administered by the same regime I may need to overthrow.

I must say that I am shocked to see TR taking such liberal positions on this issue.

longrange1947 · 03-20-2004, 15:35

Quote:

BTW, Eugene Volokh is probably the leading conservative scholar in this area. He clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is one of the few conservatives on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would not call his views "left coast" views any more than I would call my views representative of Los Angeles lawyers. LOL

I was trying to throw some humor into the game, but fell flat on my face as usual.

TR liberal!!!???? Now THAT is humor.

**The Reaper** · 03-20-2004, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I am a member of the militia, and there is no &^%$&^% way anyone is going to condition my right to defend myself against an oppressive regime on any type of competency or other requirements, particularly if administered by the same regime I may need to overthrow.

I must say that I am shocked to see TR taking such liberal positions on this issue.

Hey, I am not going to let you own anything that you are not qualified to operate and some lawyer might sue me into bankruptcy for selling to you. Liability?

Standardized classes will be taught, a written and practical safety and operating test administered, and qualification fire conducted.

You and two buddies want to form up a .50 M-2 MG crew, or an 81mm mortar team, you have to show me you can safely store, maintain, and operate it. That means that if you live in Rhode Island, you probably shouldn't own anything that could shoot outside the state, so you would pretty much be limited to rimfires there, as the locals seem to prefer.

Military provides training and testing, and perhaps some subsidy of weapons, ammo, safe storage, and ranges. A graduated license would be issued, a Kalifornia lawyer would probably be on a Restricted "E License", permitted only to own Red Ryder BB guns, and an SF Weapons Daddy like LR1947 could have an "A License" to acquire whatever he could afford to buy and feed.

TR

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-20-2004, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
Hey, I am not going to let you own anything that you are not qualified to operate and some lawyer might sue me into bankruptcy for selling to you. Liability?

Standardized classes will be taught, a written and practical safety and operating test administered, and qualification fire conducted.

You and two buddies want to form up a .50 M-2 MG crew, or an 81mm mortar team, you have to show me you can safely store, maintain, and operate it. That means that if you live in Rhode Island, you probably shouldn't own anything that could shoot outside the state, so you would pretty much be limited to rimfires there, as the locals seem to prefer.

Military provides training and testing, and perhaps some subsidy of weapons, ammo, safe storage, and ranges. A graduated license would be issued, a Kalifornia lawyer would probably be on a Restricted "E License", permitted only to own Red Ryder BB guns, and an SF Weapons Daddy like LR1947 could have an "A License" to acquire whatever he could afford to buy and feed.

TR

So the State is going to have records of who owns what, what training they have, etc.?

TYRANNY!

What you are proposing is no different from handgun registration and various other means of gun control that I suspect you don't like. Or do you like them now?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-20-2004, 17:22

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=67

**The Reaper** · 03-20-2004, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
So the State is going to have records of who owns what, what training they have, etc.?

TYRANNY!

What you are proposing is no different from handgun registration and various other means of gun control that I suspect you don't like. Or do you like them now?

No, the state has a record that I am allowed to buy and operate anything up to a certain level. They have no idea what I have actually bought, unless they agree to sell military property to me. There would be so many heavy weapons in private hands within 2 years that you could not recover them without unbelievable bloodshed, as our forefathers intended.

You have the appropriate license, like an OL or a pilot's license, you can buy anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want.

Those unwilling to go through the training and testing can continue to buy and carry the same civilian small arms they have to jump through hoops to buy today.

You want something that can obliterate my house from 5 miles away, I think you should be to operate it responsibly, or reinstate my right to lawfully pound the living snot out of any one of the people that I see every day who are demonstrating they are too stupid to live and are wasting perfectly good oxygen. You see how some people operate motor vehicles, another deadly weapon, admittedly usually short range and direct fire, you want to let them buy a long range, indirect fire weapon without any training?

How is that gun control (other than teaching people how to hit what they are aiming at)? Or are you looking for some lucrative lawsuits?

TR

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-20-2004, 17:32

I see where you are going, but it seems to me that the training license records would be used by a tyrannical government in the same way as registration records. I don't see a benefit to requiring training that outweighs the importance of a heavily armed citizenry.

I don't have a problem with extreme penalties for criminal conduct such as obliterating your house.

I also would think about supporting mandatory firearms training for everyone, perhaps in high school.

But I think your proposal accomplishes little while undermining liberty greatly. I especially do not like the idea of having the military supervise the training. No offense, but that is the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Perhaps if you explain where you would draw the line, I might be persuaded of the error in my thinking.

**The Reaper** · 03-20-2004, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I see where you are going, but it seems to me that the training license records would be used by a tyrannical government in the same way as registration records. I don't see a benefit to requiring training that outweighs the importance of a heavily armed citizenry.

I don't have a problem with extreme penalties for criminal conduct such as obliterating your house.

I also would think about supporting mandatory firearms training for everyone, perhaps in high school.

But I think your proposal accomplishes little while undermining liberty greatly. I especially do not like the idea of having the military supervise the training. No offense, but that is the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Perhaps if you explain where you would draw the line, I might be persuaded of the error in my thinking.

A tyrannical government is prohibited from misconduct by nature of the weapons in the hands of the citizen militia, as the Constitution intended.

The military is qualified to provide firearms instruction as needed by members of the militia.

If you leave it up to the states, what sort of training requirements, ranges, and support do you expect for a state like Kalifornia to provide for its citizens?

The fact that I could posess a Class A license proves nothing about what I might, or might not have.

If you think that my system might undermine liberty, go try to buy a military issue weapon like an M-16 or M-4 in your local gun store today.

TR

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-20-2004, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
A tyrannical government is prohibited from misconduct by nature of the weapons in the hands of the citizen militia, as the Constitution intended.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
The military is qualified to provide firearms instruction as needed by members of the militia.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
If you leave it up to the states, what sort of training requirements, ranges, and support do you expect for a state like Kalifornia to provide for its citizens?

I don't know. I suspect Georgia would do a better job. But you are saying these are necessary things, and I question that.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
The fact that I could posess a Class A license proves nothing about what I might, or might not have.

True, but that would not stop the Gestapo from starting with the holders of Class A licenses. If I was combatting an insurgency and the government had these records, to me that would be extremely valuable intelligence information. I'd act on it.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
If you think that my system might undermine liberty, go try to buy a military issue weapon like an M-16 or M-4 in your local gun store today.

I'm not comparing your system to the present one. I'm looking at it tabula rasa. I think I probably would like your system better than what we have now, at least if the training requirements exist only for "heavy" weapons like artillery. For small arms, I am opposed to any training or registration requirements whatsoever.

I still question whether there should be any training requirements at all. Your suggestion that there would be a critical mass of licensed weapons holders appeals to me, but what about those people who did not foresee the need to obtain a license when the need to arm themselves arises? I bought my shotgun immediately after the Rodney King riots. I had to wait for the waiting period to expire. That sucked. If there was a bad coup in this country, I'd want to be able to go buy whatever I wanted without having to get a license first. I don't have the need or desire to get such a license today, and I suspect I'm not alone.

myclearcreek · 03-21-2004, 16:16

I did not anticipate the need for a firearm or that my neighbors would steal from me as soon as I became a single Mom. The fact that I have access to a gun does not mean I know how to use it. That is my fault. But do I want it mandated that I must have training to purchase a weapon? I do not think so with the information I have read thus far.

Re: Gun safety training in high schools.

The schools have enough problems and with Zero-Tolerance policies in effect on many campuses, I do not see this happening any time soon.

4-H Clubs have Shooting Sports, which can be very effective for this purpose. Eddie Eagle is another good program. Finding ways to expand existing programs outside schools seems a better alternative to me.

brewmonkey · 03-21-2004, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The rest or good to go as is with the caveat that they do not apply to non-US citizens or terrorists. If you are convicted of a felony, they may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.

What about some of the violent misdemeanors that occur such as domestic assault/abuse/violence?