One of the reasons it took me so long to get a CCW is getting over the idea that I had to get governmental permission to carry concealed, but I’ve read the case law going all the way back to just after ratification of the Bill of Rights, and if I’m going to be consistent, I have to acknowledge that even back then there was a general consensus that open carry was lawful, and concealed carry wasn’t and could be regulated. OK, fine.

But not registration. That’s my line in the sand. And if they come to confiscate my firearms because I haven’t obeyed their unconstitutional law, then yes, that will be sufficient cause to open fire.

And I’ll die like Carl Drega or Marvin Heemeyer, to no greater effect than they had.

Just remember that the first battle of the revolution was over an attempt at confiscation.

Just sayin’

Well, yes. For now I can handle an M1 or Mini-14, but the pistol-grip AR, AK, FAL etc makes it much easier to hold and control with the arthritis in my hands and wrists. When my arthritis gets too bad, shouldn’t I be allowed to have a weapon I can use?

But someone answer me this: If an uninvited armed individual were to attempt entry to your residence, would you let them? Why does it differ if that individual is wearing a uniform and / or employed by the government?

That’s a decision people need to make for themselves. I wouldn’t presume to tell people what to do in that situation. For myself, if I can readily identify them as police, I won’t shoot, but I’ll demand to see the warrant. If I can’t identify them as police, we’re going to have a problem. But, you know, I’m a rather heavy sleeper. If the entry team were good I’d probably wake to six guys poking me with their AR-15s telling me to get the hell up.

My disagreement with laws, registration, etc. is that may of them turn law abiding citizens into criminals. Look at NJ’s recently passed .50 ban. All the previously legal hunters or collectors are instantly criminals if the fail to dispose of their lawfully purchased, owned, and utilized firearms.

If I cross the Delaware, and a stray hollow point is found (assuming I’d submit to a search -NOT) is found rolling around my range bag – instant felon. If I’m traveling to NH for an event and I stop for coffee in NJ or NY – instant felon. Especially if I have a “high cap” mag for whatever I’m transporting.

You made a point of people leaving NJ in droves. True, but thats not about rights and freedoms, it’s about cost of living. And if you follow the local political scenes and newspaper interviews, these NJ flights are slowly turning PA in to NJ, Look at the intrusion into privately owned businesses no longer able to make a decision if they want to allow smoking or not. Where do you think that started? Why do you think that it might end with a smoking ban?

In reference to roadblocks, yes I think they are unconstitutional and a bad idea, but driving on public roads is a privilege.

As said in an earlier post; do I think it’s time to start shooting it out? No. But someone answer me this: If an uninvited armed individual were to attempt entry to your residence, would you let them? Why does it differ if that individual is wearing a uniform and / or employed by the government?

As for the first amendment, our government says it’s against the law to broadcast material about a candidate for federal office 60 days before an election. That’s cutting to the very heart of what the second amendment is meant to protect! I think McCain-Feingold destroys the first amendment far more than California’s assault weapons ban destroys the second. The fundamental nut of the first amendment is that people have the right to criticize the government, and criticize those in power, so that we may discuss the merits of their continuing to occupy their seat at government. Once the government begins to shut down avenues of criticism of themselves, they are chipping away at its core purpose.

Yet… no calls for revolution. If McCain-Feingold were to come before The Court today, it would be tossed out. O’Conner was the 5th vote on that one, and she’s gone. I think we’ll get rid of it. It will just take time.

Too far? Absolutely. Justification for “shooting it out” over such registration? Absolutely not. Individuals shooting it out is NOT how to change Chicago, DC, NJ registration laws.

“Registration is a sufficient transgression to warrant shooting.”

If you had posed the question as follows, perhaps you’d have gotten more than 11%:

“Registration is a transgression sufficient to be opposed with all our political might.”

What seems to be missing is the outrage from the general public, not just on the 2nd amendment issues but also for some very major issue with Congress and their lack of accountability and continual push for more poorly thought out legislation.

There is a lot of play between individual outrage and open revolt and we as the outraged haven’t covered much of that ground. Very large organizations of citizens have been quite silent (ACLU, NAACP, etc.) are now so politicized to the extreme, they forget what they are supposed to do…slam the government for violations. Where were/are they on Kelo?! Why weren’t they pushing pro-Heller? These are made up of citizens and usually ones that are more informed than the masses yet they do very little for real rights and accountability.

Maybe it is time to create a large lobbying group similar to the NRA which specifically targets the Legislative and Judicial branch to address our grievances. I would love to have 10 million citizens standing up against congress and saying enough with the violations of our rights and freedoms. Time to pay the piper.

The checks and balances that are supposed to be in play aren’t working. The Supreme Court is a patsy and a fraud and filled with those who don’t even read or understand the constitution. Congress is only looking after themselves and lining their pockets with no interest in the good of the country.

Ultimately, organization needs to happen to put some real pressure for these issues. Many have suffered because of the government with loss of jobs, prison, bankruptcies, and even death because government is overstepping their role. I would hope this outrage of the 3% would turn to fire and brimstone in the lobbying world first before we have to take it to the final step.

And I’m with Teal on the “are you really that downgraded with an M1 Garand” argument. I don’t get the way you’ve phrased it. Apply it to the 4th Amendment. Are you really that downgraded if some nice police officers enter your home at dinner-time and spend a mere 10 minutes looking around? Hell yeah, I’d say.

I mean, why not just apply that to DC then? Are you really that downgraded not being able to own a semiautomatic handgun? You can just have a disassembled hunting rifle instead. You still have a gun, after all. By that logic, what’s wrong with a handgun ban? What’s wrong with a ban on any weapon that can hold more than 10 rounds? You still have an M1 Garand, after all.

What about the 13th? Are you really that downgraded being forced to perform a mere 25 hours of volunteer work every year? Obama wants your answer. Heh.

You’re making excellent points on many arguments, Sebastian, and I’m happy to see this subject being talked about because it has seemed taboo, but there’s a line there somewhere in saying, “you can’t have everything, but be happy you have something”.

California passes the following law related to blogging:

1) All bloggers must be licensed in order to post on the internet. They must submit to a background check and be fingerprinted. They must post with their real names.–This common sense regulation ensures that unscrupulous posters will not hide behind anonymity in order to engage in hateful, argumentative, untruthful or illogical speech. Of course, felons, those adjudicated mentally unfit, pedophiles and terrorists would be kept from posting, making the internet a safer place for all of us.

2) There is a seven day cooling off period before any post may be published to the internet. There is a limitation of 15 posts per month.–These generous terms allow reasonable expression while acting as a precautionary roadblock for those who would seek to post while angry, intoxicated, etc. Clearly no reasonable person needs to post more than 15 times in a single month.

3) Blog postings may only be read by 100 people. After the 100th person reads a post, it must be deleted.–This balanced approach ensures that everyone has an opportunity to participate in our free expression by limiting the influence that any one poster may have. Certainly if one blogger agrees with another blogger’s post, they are free to quote or comment on it, as long as they have not exceeded their 15 post per month limit. Free speech is still able to spread geometrically, a most generous cap.

4) Blog posts containing more than than two of the following features are considered to be “assault posts” for the purposes of this law, and are prohibited:
a) Negative opinions of public officials or the actions of their offices or of any larger government body.
b) Incitement of others to speak negatively about anything listed in section 4-a.
c) Addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, pictures or descriptions of anything listed in section 4-a
d) Incitement to vote, pursue ballot measures, or petition for redress of grievances in any matter which may be construed, at the discretion of this office, to contravene the stated wishes, policies, or actions of anything listed in section 4-a.

These reasonable, common-sense rules increase freedom of expression by making blogging an activity which is safe for everyone to engage in, and by ensuring that harmful bloggers may not do any significant harm to the safety and peace of the land.

“I hate California’s non-protestant religion ban, but it does regulate doctrinal minutiae. It’s what makes the ban silly, but it also doesn’t do much to prevent people from carrying out the main tenents of Christian doctrine. Are you really that badly downgraded with the symbolic presence of Christ’s body and blood in communion, compared to the real presence? The ban is annoying, and yes, I do believe it infringes on the first amendment, but in terms of its practical significance in preventing the execution of its purpose, California’s laws frustrate the first amendment, but do not entirely destroy it.”

As state after state takes up bans and registration schemes, the choosers and movers are herded into a few states. While I’ve been in TN, meddling like smoking bans and seatbelt requirements have been instituted – imported from states like CA, and all reducing freedom. I expect that freedom will continue to be proscribed, including the right to arms, across the several states. So when all the line-in-the-sanders are in AZ, MT, VT, or AK, what can they do? They’ll be concentrated away from the centers of power so any action they take will be of little utility. That is the curse.