Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Colorado Judge upheld Colorado's fifteen round magazine limitation and universal background checks today. She determined that no one "needs" more than fifteen rounds to protect themselves.

How did she determine that? What if I show her I have 16 enemies?

[drivfast]

Originally Posted by ddoering

How did she determine that? What if I show her I have 16 enemies?

Ha, Someone should explain to her honor what "shoot to stop the threat" means. 1 round per target with a 5.56 carbine? in what universe does that happen? I guess she is assuming getting hit means instant incapacitaion. With all due respect to her honor, she has seen too many movies imho. Reading the Team Sergeant's post on the 2nd Amendment further confirms the lack of logic commonly used by the anti-2nd Amendment crowd. This Colorado judge's remark is a perfect example.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Colorado Judge upheld Colorado's fifteen round magazine limitation and universal background checks today. She determined that no one "needs" more than fifteen rounds to protect themselves.

That "judge" is a moron.

Had I been the defense attorney in her court room I would have asked for 5 armed court police to appear in her courtroom immediately, then ask them each how many rounds are each carrying.

My guess would have been 45 or more rounds each. Then I'd ask them why so many rounds?

F**king socialist judges.....

[drivfast]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

That "judge" is a moron.

Had I been the defense attorney in her court room I would have asked for 5 armed court police to appear in her courtroom immediately, then ask them each how many rounds are each carrying.

My guess would have been 45 or more rounds each. Then I'd ask them why so many rounds?

F**king socialist judges.....

Roger that. Perfect analogy.

[tonyz]

I recall members of this board citing similar statistics for both Florida and Texas in a discussion years ago. Additional information via links embedded in the actual article.

Hard Truth for Gun-Control Advocates: Permit Holders Extremely Law-Abiding
Sarah Jean Seman | Aug 06, 2014
TownHall.com

Guns can be frightening, particularly for those individuals who have no idea how to use a firearm. In a recent Townhallvideo, one man reasoned that concealed carry in Washington D.C. was dangerous because "more people carrying guns means more opportunity for those guns to be used."

Individuals employing the “more guns more crime” logic are using shoddy research as the basis for their claim.

“If you look at information from the Justice Department, they have something called the National Crime Victimization survey. What you find is that guns are used in crime about 250,000 times a year.” John R. Lott Jr., economist, Yale professor, and president of Crime Prevention Research Center, told Townhall.

“If you look at similar surveys of people who use guns defensively, it’s about two million times a year. So basically people are using guns defensively to stop crimes about four to five times more frequently each year than guns are used to commit a crime. Most people don’t realize that.”

The truth is that individuals with gun-permits are extremely law-abiding. Less than one percent of licensed firearm holders have had their permits revoked due to misdemeanors.

The Crime Prevention Research Center reported on statistics from Florida, Texas, and Michigan (the three states where more than 2.5 million of the United States’ 11 million handgun permits are held):

During almost three decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida issued permits to almost 2.66 million people. These permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at an annual rate of only 0.0003 percent. For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.
The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012 (the latest year that crime data are available), there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent. Only a few of these crimes involved a gun.

Revocations and suspensions occur when people are charged with a crime, but only about 5 percent or less of these cases result in conviction and thus people are eligible for having their licenses reinstated.

While 120 were convicted of a crime in 2012, 905 people had their permits revoke, for a total rate of 0.15%.

Over the last five years that revocation data is available (2009 to 2013), the rate is slightly lower, 0.13%.

For Michigan, overall revocation rate for the five years from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 is slightly higher but still low, at 0.26%.

News agencies rarely report prevented crimes, Lott pointed out. After all, the newsworthy aspect of the tale never occurred.

“Almost all of defensive gun uses don’t require a shot to be fired; it’s like 95 percent simply brandishing the gun. Attackers are killed less than one out of a 1,000 times a gun is used defensively. And those are basically about the only stories that are going to get news coverage anyway.”

Yet people with the right to carry are stopping crimes and saving lives. Here are just a few examples reported on Townhall: In Washington state, a bus passenger carrying a concealed weapon brought down a gunman. In Texas, an armed citizen prevented a man from mugging a woman’s purse. In New York, a pizza delivery man potentially saved his own life by being armed when thugs jumped him at night.

It is no wonder that President Obama has a misconstrued theory on gun control, since he seems to hear about everything through the media. It is essential for policy makers, however, to recognize the full range of unintended consequences that could ensue from disarming citizens.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahje...tm_campaign=nl

[pcfixer]

Federal judge upholds Maryland’s ban on ARs; Calls them ‘dangerous and unusual’


http://www.guns.com/2014/08/13/feder...s-and-unusual/

In upholding Maryland’s strict new gun control laws, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that AR-15 style rifles and others “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

The ruling, in the case of Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al, pitted a number of plaintiffs including both local and national gun rights groups against Maryland in a challenge to the state’s 2013 assault rifle ban. Filed last September, the case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland who denied the plaintiffs’ request and found for the state.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ss-Motion1.pdf

"Another socialists Judge"!

[BryanK]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

...In upholding Maryland’s strict new gun control laws, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that AR-15 style rifles and others “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms.”

Yep, that's how I interpret the 2nd Amendment as well..."All weapons deemed fitting for the proles which WE will decide; Shall not be infringed; Not even a smidgeon"

[Streck-Fu]

I still want my Mk19.....

[BryanK]

Ask, and ye shall receive...

[ddoering]

Perhaps she would change her mind if she found her neighborhood in the middle of a riot zone.

[pcfixer]

The Judges Conclusion: Federal Judge Catherine C Blake.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ss-Motion1.pdf

I don't and have never understood how the "STATE" can assert that 'public safety' and 'government interest' is or ever overrules an enumerated right. These judges skirt the actual plain use of legal language that is to be read 'in context' (many judges use partial phrase or sentence from USSC) by use of semantic or use of rationalized thinking due to politics.

[The Reaper]

In Miller, the SCOTUS ruled that he had no right to possess an unregistered short-barreled shotgun because it was NOT a commonly used military weapon.

Shouldn't that, and the original intent and wording of the founders, mean that every land-owning male not a felon should be provided an M-16 or M-4 for their own use?

TR

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

In Miller, the SCOTUS ruled that he had no right to possess an unregistered short-barreled shotgun because it was NOT a commonly used military weapon.

Shouldn't that, and the original intent and wording of the founders, mean that every land-owning male not a felon should be provided an M-16 or M-4 for their own use?

TR

TR, Absolutely! Also with at least a basic load of ammo and 30 round PMAG's.

Militia: "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. From US vs Miller.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

[TOMAHAWK9521]

One of my uncles just sent me this little article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.


By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.


This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around... reloading.


Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.


In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.


Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.


Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[Sdiver]

Notice too, which party ALL of those who voted to give away our constitutional rights belong to.

King and Sanders, have an (I) behind their names, but in their hearts, they are nothing but D's in my book.