Thanks for the links, Terry. That is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

The last line of the second link pretty much sums things up:

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."

So....

What is the point of the rest of the wrangling and debating about the rest of the laws? If it is legal for an Executive Order to do things beyond the rest of the law... its all kinda moot. Other than to have laws in place that can be used to sue the Administrative department... by who? Congress? The Supreme Court? That Jackson quote pretty much nails it: if the Commander in Chief orders something... go ahead and let the Supreme Court try to enforce an injunction against it.

Funny thing is that liberal folks that I know are just as concerned about this kind of thing. While they may be supportive of larger government programs and the like, none of them condone such a dictatorship and don't equate larger government services with larger government control. That refers to liberal ~people~ and not necessarily the politicians, by the way, but I think politicians on both sides of the isle have blood on their hands when it comes to reducing constitutional and civil rights.

I don't think it is a matter of either party or their bases trying to create an all-powerful state. Its the state creating itself as an all-powerful state. What I'm not sure of is why.

Anyway - more on topic. I don't think gun control is a huge issue for the Obama administration. It was for Obama as a rep. of Illinois because it was a major issue there. He has much, much larger fish trying to fry him. It is certainly something to watch out for, as always, but I think he was just trying to appeal to his base. Which, you may not have noticed, are no longer a singing choir. Many of them are wishing they could vote a different democrat into office next year.

^

Excellent sequence of posts.  I gave you another +1.  Welcome aboard.

The only comment I have is with respect to your remark about trying to find middle ground. While I myself am kind of middle of the road, I recognize that the dynamics of "compromise" usually works to the detriment of the side "opposite" to those who seek a compromise.

Simply put:  If I am at point 1 of an issue which goes from 1 to 10, and you are at point 10 and say, "Hey, let's compromise," and I do, that puts me at, say, 5, on that issue.  I have therefore lost ground, and the next compromise will put me at point 7.5 on that issue. Then the next time around, I will find myself at 8.75 on that scale.  And so on.

The problem is that the "liberals" or "gun grabbers" or however you want to characterize them, are well aware of these dynamics and make good use of them.

For that reason, my stance is uncompromisedly pro-2a, which you will undoubtedly notice in my posts here and elsewhere.

You will also note that most of the liberties surrendered in respect to gun control are a direct result of successive compromises  --to the point where, for example, the terrific burden of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) is now a normal part of the everyday life of a gun owner/buyer.

So we are now "used to it" and fill in all the little blanks on 4473 as if it were the natural state of affairs in the Cosmos.

This "being used to it" then sets the stage for more "compromise."

Which is exactly what the President wants.

And ultimately we will be at point 9.999 after all the compromises on that issue. 

There.  I said it and I ain't takin' it back.

Terry, 230RN

I agree with terry on that one. Gun control comes in many small steps. They limit stuff here. Take stuff away there.  Thats why its important to be actively involved in your 2a rights and show your support or disfavor for what is happening. Let them know you know your rights and will dam well use them. If not when the final bill comes to pass and you finally decided to fight for your rights, uncle Sam will say, where were you this whole time. You were ok with laws A, B and C, and now you want to complain. Too bad. And our gun rights will be gone forever. And that registration list will be used so they know who to collect guns from.

Ah. Compromise. I just realized what the core issue is in this discussion.

Quite correct that it leads to yet more compromise. Its also a pretty amateurish way to do things.

Brief background:

There are 5 ways to resolve conflict:

1) Aggression: I win, you lose
2) Capitulation: I lose, you win
3) Avoidance: we'll decide this later...
4) Compromise: I lose, you lose
and
5) Collaboration: I win, you win.

1-4 all lead to the issue coming up again because the issue isn't really resolved. Only collaboration has any hope of leading to a solution that won't need to be revisited. I've worked a bit in organizational conflict resolution and that's where I got all that from.

In the case of gun control the potentially collaborative issue is not guns at all but violent crime. Liberals think that putting all the sharp things is a safe place will reduce violent crime, conservatives think having more law abiding people with sharp things will reduce violent crime. Both are valid - its just that this nation has a constitutional amendment that says its citizens can be armed. Both viewpoints don't really address the root causes of the rise in violent crime: weak economy, growing income inequality, a culture that doesn't know how to be happy except through consumption, punitive only law enforcement, decaying urban environments, etc.

We're all concerned about violent crime, though, and neither CCW nor increased gun control are even close to complete solutions to that issue. In fact, they are both nearly irrelevant to the issue once you understand the deep roots and circumstances that tend to lead to increased violent crime. It is MUCH easier, cheaper (at least in terms of money) and more advantageous to our politicians for us to bicker and argue over hotbed issues like gun control than it is to actually address and find affective solutions. So we get into Us vs. Them over important policy battles which have huge impacts on our personal freedoms without coming anywhere close to moving the war (to use the battle/war analogy) against violent crime any closer to being won.

High minded ideals, I know. Compromise is even taught in grade school as the way to resolve conflicts. It is: for selfish children that aren't cognitively developed enough to grapple with such concepts as systems thinking or "the greater good." If you're wondering why our politicians seem to be acting like selfish children at times its because our system is still based on the conflict resolution technique we teach are kids when they don't know any better.

Which... has no bearing on the current policy situation since we're already deeply entrenched in our 'Gun Control" and "Gun Rights" battle. And I concede the issue at hand: compromise on any gun rights infringements will lead to the next battle and more infringements. That is quite correct, my ideals not withstanding.

I still wish there was some way of reframing the issue around a collaborative approach to addressing violent crime, though. It galls me that we consistently make enemies of each other over our passion to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens. The only people that benefit are the politicians and the criminals.

edit: and thanks for the welcome, by the way. Glad to be aboard.

Cogently put, but there is at least one oint in the  flyment:

"5) Collaboration: I win, you win."

The presumption in that is that both parties are negotiating or "collaborating" in good faith.  This is false.

The anti gunners have only one goal in mind. and that is the total proscription of all guns for anyone but the military and the police.

Let me put it another way:  The anti gunners have only one goal in mind. and that is the total proscription of all guns for anyone but the military and the police.

In other words, the anti gunners have only one goal in mind. and that is the total proscription of all guns for anyone but the military and the police.

To this end, they will use any blandishment, strategy, lie, tactic, trickery, suppression of information, or any other nefarious method to bring the RKBA movement down.

Just go to the Democratic Underground site and dig into the gun discussions there, and you will soon see what I mean.

This is why I am so adamantly pro-2A.  In sixty or more years of shooting, I have seen too many compromises result in the small steps that bass monkey pointed out which will lead to a total ban.

And I am sorry to respectfully disgree with your statement that "In the case of gun control the potentially collaborative issue is not guns at all but violent crime."

No, but with that apology, I point out that the issue is guns. Crime is the excuse that is used to incrementally move toward that goal of the total proscription of all guns for anyone except the military and the police.

As some wiseacre said very very recently, "The anti gunners have only one goal in mind. and that is the total proscription of all guns for anyone but the military and the police."  This is fundamental to any RKBA discussion.

Terry, "Adamantly pro-2A 'cause he's seen it all before," 230RN

Sure, Terry. You just completely explained why I agreed that compromising on gun rights is not a good strategy: the issue IS about guns and no one is in a collaborative mood about it.

I put the word "potentially" in that sentence for a very good reason. It is a ~potential~ avenue that could lead to a less charged discussion of the role of law abiding citizens being armed in service to reducing violent crime. At least for those who are interested in a less charged discussion. Hard core anti-gunners, as well as hardcore pro-gunners, generally aren't interested in a less charged discussion and probably can't have that discussion with each other.

So, yeah. For those dead set on having all guns "safely" in the hands of the government ( ) there is no rational argument that will persuade them to think otherwise - despite the fact that such a desire is expressly illegal according to the highest law in the country.

Collaboration does require both (or all) parties to ~want~ to find a common resolution to the issue. That's not the case here. The violent crime example was just a hypothetical example of how the issue ~might~ be addressed collaboratively - not that I have much hope that it will any time soon. NRA recommendations include this kind of language already but the issue remains guns and not violent crime.

I won't be the first to tell you: but strong arm, no compromise stances are highly ineffective.  In Hawaii its going to take cooperation and compromise.

Heck strong arm too bad thats how it will be seems to be the normal for state negotiations here.

Anywho i agree and thats why i joined this site, to learn more about my 2a rights

"I won't be the first to tell you: but strong arm, no compromise stances are highly ineffective.  In Hawaii it's going to take cooperation and compromise."

Cooperation on what?  Compromise on what?

I won't be the first to tell you: it is a civil right.

Let me put that another way:  It is a civil right.

In other words, it is a civil right.

Not a mere privilege.

"They" come up with another onerous law regarding firearms.  You compromise.  So then there's yet another abridgement of a civil right, albeit not as onerous as the first proposal, because you "compromised."  But next year they add to the proposal the same terms as in the first year, which they already compromised on. And you compromise on that.

Ultimate result?  This:



That's the result of successive compromises on your civil rights.  Looks like a pretty slippery slope, mais non?

How about turning it around so "they" have to compromise on needing to, say, register every firearm?  You think they'll compromise or cooperate on that without very vigorous (not "forceful") objections to a registration scheme?

Hey, let me ask you this.  About a week ago I asked if the Hawaiian legislature had a Volunteer Lobbyist program, where ordinary unpaid citizens have the same access to the legislators just like the paid lobbyists do.  Did anybody check that out?

Now there would be an avenue for vigorous legal objection to crappy laws.

But did anyone check it out?
 
Terry, 230RN

"I won't be the first to tell you: but strong arm, no compromise stances are highly ineffective.  In Hawaii its going to take cooperation and compromise."

Cooperation on what?  Compromise on what?

I won't be the first to tell you: it is a civil right.

Let me put that another way:  It is a civil right.

In other words, it is a civil right.

Not a mere privilege.

Terry, 230RN

I applaud Terry for this. It is my right to keep and bear arms. On this I will not compromise.

Oh wait I can't applaud you anymore.

Close your eyes and envision the applaud button being pressed. Haha. 

You wanna borrow my sig line?  Feel free.

(And thanks for the warm fuzzy.)

Hmm. I'm not disagreeing, but just for the sake of argument - or at least to point out that effective discussion of policy isn't always so simple...

What is a well regulated militia?

"I won't be the first to tell you: but strong arm, no compromise stances are highly ineffective.  In Hawaii it's going to take cooperation and compromise."

Cooperation on what?  Compromise on what?

I won't be the first to tell you: it is a civil right.

Let me put that another way:  It is a civil right.

In other words, it is a civil right.

Not a mere privilege.

"They" come up with another onerous law regarding firearms.  You compromise.  So then there's yet another abridgement of a civil right, albeit not as onerous as the first proposal, because you "compromised."  But next year they add to the proposal the same terms as in the first year, which they already compromised on. And you compromise on that.

Ultimate result?  This:  (big ass pictured removed)

That's the result of successive compromises on your civil rights.  Looks like a pretty slippery slope, mais non?

How about turning it around so "they" have to compromise on needing to, say, register every firearm?  You think they'll compromise or cooperate on that without very vigorous (not "forceful") objections to a registration scheme?

Hey, let me ask you this.  About a week ago I asked if the Hawaiian legislature had a Volunteer Lobbyist program, where ordinary unpaid citizens have the same access to the legislators just like the paid lobbyists do.  Did anybody check that out?

Now there would be an avenue for vigorous legal objection to crappy laws.

But did anyone check it out?
 
Terry, 230RN

Honestly, I would tell you to spend a couple months researching con-law. Your idea of not infringed is a pipe dream that is not consistent with reality.

Permits and registration are completely constitutional when done in a manner that is consistent with other rights.  You need training to exercise your 1st amendment.  You may need training to exercise your 2nd. There are time, place, and manner regulations for all rights.  No right is absolute. The founders never intended a right to be absolute (in fact, old regulations on guns and powder would probably make you /wrists your way to the grave).  This doesn't mean you don't fight for what is right or proper, but many times you need to be smart and pro-active by setting the stage instead of waiting for the curtains to open and 'see' what play it is you are actually watching.

The honest thing is, you have no idea what "Shall not be infringed" means until you have clearly established within the legal realm of what those infringements are.  A constitution must be interpreted by those with authority before it has meaning, otherwise its just words on paper.

Your signature tries to say that registration is unconstitutional. How is it unconstitutional if that in order to enforce their well-regulated militia States would require you to register your guns and take a roll call of people at musters (which you were required to attend)?  States needed to know who had the guns, how many they had, and what kind so that in an emergency they could utilize your arms for the common defense.

Do you feel that it is inconsistent with the principals of our government that it is banned to walk into a theater and yell "Fire"?

Do you agree or disagree that violent felons (who have not served their time) should be allowed to carry guns?

Do you think it would be a violation of your rights if you could only openly carry a firearm?

In the December 2011 issue of the American Rifleman there is an article about how the British lost their rights.  I think it is very relevant to what is being discussed here.  I can't find a link, the article is titled, "It Could Never Happen Here" by David Rooney.  It tells of how the government slowly took the right to own firearms from the British people, and the sickening laws gun owners must abide, leaving them in the sad state that they must live in today.  Britain is the definition of anti self defense.

In the December 2011 issue of the American Rifleman there is an article about how the British lost their rights.  I think it is very relevant to what is being discussed here.  I can't find a link, the article is titled, "It Could Never Happen Here" by David Rooney.  It tells of how the government slowly took the right to own firearms from the British people, and the sickening laws gun owners must abide, leaving them in the sad state that they must live in today.  Britain is the definition of anti self defense.

I just finished reading this and it is totally relevant to this discussion. The idea was that the government worked the old war strategy. It was divide and conquer. The sheep stayed silent while the government banned all semi-auto rifles over .22 caliber. Because no one REALLY needs a semi-auto rifle over .22, right? It was a compromise by the sheepish gun owners. Then it was semi-auto hand guns over .22 that was banned. Because no one REALLY needs a semi-auto over a .22, right? And so on and so forth.

"Well-regulated " means well-trained, well-equipped, well-prepared, not well-trammeled, well-restricted.

Hence the term "regular army."

Don't look at modern abridged dictionary definitions for this term.

"Well-regulated " means well-trained, well-equipped, well-prepared, not well-trammeled, well-restricted.

Hence the term "regular army."

Don't look at modern abridged dictionary definitions for this term.

I use old dictionary's (black's law, fowlers modern english) the same things that the Justices and lexicographers utilized for Heller v. District of Columbia when interpreting the words keep and bear arms.

Not that you are required to, but I would appreciate you at least answering the questions directed to you.


Blacks Law (1910)
REGULATE. The power to regulate commerce, vested in congress, is the power to prescribe the rules by which it shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted, to determine when it shall be free, and when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged.  Oloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsglvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 Sup. Ct. 826, 29 L. Ed. 168. And see aibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat.  227, 6 L. Ed. 23; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 724, 18 L. Ed. 96; Welton v. Missouri. 91 U. S. 279, 23 L. Ed. 317; Lelsy v. Hardin, 133 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L Ed. 128;  Kavanaugh v. Southern R Co., 120 Ga. 62,  47 8. E. 526. EEGULATIOX.

The act of regulating, a rule or order prescribed for management,or government; a regulating principle; a precept. See Curry v. Marvin. 2 Fla. 415; Amea v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 64 Fed. 178; Hunt v. Lambertville, 45 N. J. Law, 282

Katrina? I hadn't heard that one, yet. That's eff'ed up. Really eff'ed up. That was New Orleans police according to an article I just read. That should be a rallying cry for defending the 2nd amendment as the local police simply do not have the jurisdiction to do that. That explains the recent Hawaii law forbidding the state from confiscating weapons during an emergency. I wondered what prompted that since the law didn't say they could in the first place. I'm not sure how I let that one slip by. Thanks.

I'm glad that happened, in a way. What a terrible way for LE to respond. Huge mistake. Now we can point to both Katrina and the Japanese internment of WWII as clear evidence that it not only can happen by HAS happened here. WWII was federal and Katrina looks like it was local.

No good to family dead. Good point. When I think of large scale gun grabs I also tend to assume we'll ~know~ it is large scale. That could (but might not) facilitate a resistance to it. Regardless of policy there are many, many people who don't agree that the government has that power. But... in reality if there is an emergency the world gets very small and its down to you, possibly your community, and the people saying "Ok, now it is time to hand over your guns" and you have to chose to load or unload.

Anyone know if and what role registration played in the New Orleans gun grab?

Actually, the law DID say they could invoke "Emergency Powers" under HRS 128. And, the emergency powers granted were to be construed liberally" as long as any such action wasn't "unconstitutional." Unfortunately, as New Orleans demonstrated (and in a much more "gun friendly" state), that liberal interpretation of the legislature's intent clearly violated many individual's Constitutional rights! And, in Hawaii, where the Courts have consistently stated the right to bear arms was not an individual right, it was all too obvious that in the event of a disaster the Government would have been very likely to consider doing a gun grab....for our own good, no doubt. Even the TAG at the time, General Wong, said we didn't need this law and that passing it might "frustrate" law enforcement efforts in the aftermath of some disaster.

Here's the wording of HRS 128.1(c):

(c)  It is declared to be the intent of the legislature to provide for and confer comprehensive powers for the purposes stated.  This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, provided that this chapter shall not be construed as conferring any power or permitting any action which is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, but, in so construing this chapter, due consideration shall be given to the circumstances as they exist from time to time.  This chapter shall not be deemed to have been amended by an act hereafter enacted at the same or any other session of the legislature, unless this chapter is amended by express reference hereto. [L 1951, c 268, pt of §2; RL 1955, §359-1; HRS §128-1; gen ch 1993]

And the wording of HRS 128.6(7):

Explosives, etc.  Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, inflammable materials and other objects, implements, substances, businesses, or services of a hazardous or dangerous character, or particularly capable of misuse by disloyal persons or the enemy, or obstructive of or tending to obstruct military operations or civil defense, including, without limitation, intoxicating liquor and the liquor business; and authorize the seizure and forfeiture of any such objects, implements, or substances unlawfully possessed, as provided in section 128-28;

(note that before passage of the law the "Except as provided by section 134-7.2" wasn't there...why they didn't just remove the references relating to firearms from HRS 128 is unclear....)


As for how registration of guns affected the New Orleans Gun Grab, it didn't....they took anyone's guns. They didn't rely on any proof of ownership or anything, they just took, by force, if necessary. I can still hear that Bozo Nagen saying, "No one but the police will be armed..."

And registration of firearms has resulted in confiscation in the US. Look up what happened in California in terms of their "Assault Weapon" ban....basically they required owners of certain evil black rifles to register them and then, a little while later told those that had registered them that now they were illegal and they needed to be turned in or taken out of state.

The so-called "Bill of Rights" day is coming up 15 Dec 2011.

Pursuant thereto, I read the Bill of Rights.

I found this, in the Preamble thereto:

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

I adjure all and sundry to re-read the Constitution strictly in the light of the bolded (by me) statements so carefully constructed and hashed out by the Founders and hope  that (plural) you come to the realization that the enormous dust-cloud of opinions, laws, regulations, and late-day legal blatherings by higher Courts or otherwise beyond those clear words are illegal and meaningless, and no amount of pussyfootin' around obviates this stance.

My signature line pertains withal.

Terry, "Stiffnecked on the Constitution," 230RN

Are you still unable to answer my questions? I don't want to waste my time if you are just going to ramble.  "Rights" even at the time of founding were never unlimited.

Can you prove to me that there were no restrictions, regulations, or other requirements that affected a fundamental right at the time of founding?