JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
First off let me say that I am aware that keeping our gun rights is an ongoing battle, because there are people in government that would love to strip us of that right. However the situation is not nearly as dire as some would have us believe.

I am not denying that people have been buying guns and ammo like mad. I am saying that all the unfounded talk about the government taking our guns and ammo is the CAUSE of it. All of the people that have been panic buying every round of ammo as it hits the shelves at retailers are the reason for the shortage. I have not seen any of these new laws that were supposedly coming. What I have seen is a lot of people spreading unsubstantiated rumors(such as the expiring primers rumor that keeps resurfacing), and even more people acting on them blindly. I have yet to see any proof to back up these claims, though I would be more than happy to eat my words if anyone can produce it.

well... i dont have quotes of nancy pelosi, or some other constitution hater promising to make primers expire, however, when i typed expiring primers into google, it was unnerving that the whole first page (maybe the first 10 pages, i didnt look far) had links to the the same rumor many times over. who knows what anyone can do to prevent any and all of our rights from being infringed upon at this point. my stance has been and will be this: we need to forget about who drives a ford, a chevy, a dodge. we need to stop being "conservatives" and "democrats" etc... almost no one is 100% across the board any 1 stereotype. but, we are all americans, and we all have rights guaranteed to us that need protecting, its way beyond time to get together and put people in office that arent puppets who think they can override our SET IN STONE constitution with a few pen strokes. google Alex Jones if you feel like being sick to your stomach, his videos are frighteningly black and white, and hard to contradict... if you dont think you have been lied to for your whole life... watch his videos and PM me your take on things. fun stuff
 
well... i dont have quotes of nancy pelosi, or some other constitution hater promising to make primers expire, however, when i typed expiring primers into google, it was unnerving that the whole first page (maybe the first 10 pages, i didnt look far) had links to the the same rumor many times over. who knows what anyone can do to prevent any and all of our rights from being infringed upon at this point. my stance has been and will be this: we need to forget about who drives a ford, a chevy, a dodge. we need to stop being "conservatives" and "democrats" etc... almost no one is 100% across the board any 1 stereotype. but, we are all americans, and we all have rights guaranteed to us that need protecting, its way beyond time to get together and put people in office that arent puppets who think they can override our SET IN STONE constitution with a few pen strokes. google Alex Jones if you feel like being sick to your stomach, his videos are frighteningly black and white, and hard to contradict... if you dont think you have been lied to for your whole life... watch his videos and PM me your take on things. fun stuff

You are proving my point. I did the same search for expiring primers. The first result was a thread on a forum from back in 2003. That particular rumor keeps resurfacing though I have yet to see substantiated proof anywhere that it has any chance of becoming a reality.

The point I am trying to make is that we should be focusing on the REAL threats to our rights such as getting the people that work against those rights voted out of office, rather than expending so much time/energy freaking out about unsubstantiated rumors.
 
"The point I am trying to make is that we should be focusing on the REAL threats to our rights such as getting the people that work against those rights voted out of office, rather than expending so much time/energy freaking out about unsubstantiated rumors."

My friend if you ever run for office please let me know because I want to be the first to vote for you.
Thank you
 
"The point I am trying to make is that we should be focusing on the REAL threats to our rights such as getting the people that work against those rights voted out of office, rather than expending so much time/energy freaking out about unsubstantiated rumors."

My friend if you ever run for office please let me know because I want to be the first to vote for you.
Thank you

It's funny you mention that. I have been toying with the idea of getting into politics. The only thing holding me back is that I don't think that I would stand a chance because I would not be willilng to lie to get elected, and I was a wild child when I was younger so there would be ample dirt to dig up on me if political opponents wanted to play dirty. ;)
 
The supreme court case today is about the Chicago handgun ban, that has been in place for about 28 years. The bill of rights was orginally conceived and applied as rules for federal laws and not for the state and local governments. So some of you who are so sure of what the correct (original) interpretation of the limits of the bill of rights are off. After the civil war the federal government became dominant and the states lost power, so the bill of rights began to be applied to state decisions.

It was only 2 years ago that the supreme court interpreted the 2nd as being an individuals right when overturning the bans in DC, however DC is not really a state so that decision fell over a gray area. The supreme court avoided hearing any cases about the Chicago ban until now.

To add more confusion the 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, a decision here to advance the 2nd will cut the power of the 10th.
 
The supreme court case today is about the Chicago handgun ban, that has been in place for about 28 years. The bill of rights was orginally conceived and applied as rules for federal laws and not for the state and local governments. So some of you who are so sure of what the correct (original) interpretation of the limits of the bill of rights are off. After the civil war the federal government became dominant and the states lost power, so the bill of rights began to be applied to state decisions.

Via constitutional means that did not exist until the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Most of the rest of the Bill of Rights has long since been "incorporated" against the states. It stands out that the 2nd Amendment has not been.
 
Zach has it. You can't change the rules depending on which amendments you like and which you don't. You incorporate all amendments or none of them. This truth is, unfortunately, going to complicate the SC's decision making process.

From what I see on other forums the SC's ruling will be announced in late June or mid-July. Even if the ruling is made as expected we will still be fighting various municipalities for another ten years.
 
I am ignorant I guess. But why do we continue to let the few with their own opinions make decisions for the many. Weren't our courts put together to judge what was already written into law and to judge what will be put into law? Not to make laws themselves? Didn't congress and the representatives come up with laws that were supposed to be made for the people and by the people? Not against the people? Didn't the founding fathers write in the Bill Of Rights that WE THE PEOPLE have the last and most powerful say in this country? Counties-States-then Country as a whole?

I must be ignorant but I think that if some judge or a group of judges or our representatives pass a law or laws outside of what WE THE PEOPLE agree to be unlawful in OUR eyes, then WE THE PEOPLE should let them know and demand that any laws we decide to be changed or abolished be carried out like WE want them too. Wasn't the States and the Country put together for the FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE? To Protect the Freedom of the people to rule and govern themselves by there own wishes and judgments? Are we going to continue to let the few with there opinions control our rights? For the most part the courts nor our representatives do the will of the people.

The people that are supposed to be representing the people and the Courts=(people) and laws of this country that are supposed to protect the people have changed from what the founding fathers and the citizens of the United States of America have intended. So we can just stand by and continue to let them continue to decide and dictate their on opinions and will over WE THE PEOPLE or stand up and say this is enough! Is it not about time? Lets not start a civil war but there must be something WE THE PEOPLE can do instead of just letting them run over us!

I guess I am just ignorant but that's how I see it...
 
Via constitutional means that did not exist until the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Most of the rest of the Bill of Rights has long since been "incorporated" against the states. It stands out that the 2nd Amendment has not been.

Yeap.

I keep thinking about western movies where the sheriff tells Black Bart's men they have to give up their handguns for safe keeping while they visit Miss Kitty's house of pleasure, hummmm. And maybe conditions in Tombstone necessitated these actions?
 
I'm scared because if it goes wrong, that is it. Until someone figures out another angle to retry it.

And, to be honest we are talking about a larger issue than just the 2nd amendment.

At the core of this we are talking about States rights vs. Federal rights.

Should a state have the power to interrupt and enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? I'm torn over this whole issue. I'm for small federal government, but at the same time I think all the states in the union should have some common laws.

Should a state have the right to say the 1st amendment, or 2nd or heck 14th not apply to their state?

This is really the core of what this issue may address.
 
Ok I am wondering, am I like an idiot? Way off with my twisted understanding? I do not claim to have all of the answers. Shoot I really don't have many of them. But does anyone here believe anything of what I have said to be true? I joined this Great web site to learn about firearms and for the ability to purchase and sell them locally if needed. I have done that. I have also learned alot from this website and I appreciate the many intelligent people who post here. Thank you for putting up with an idiot like me! But to me with this up coming vote of the justices is like a smack in the face to our Freedoms as a people.

Example then I'll hush...

California had a citizens vote. Every eligible citizen had the chance to vote on if marriage was between a man and a women or if marriage could include a man and a man or a women and a women. The citizens voted that marriage was between a man and a women in the state of California. I do not remember the years but time passed like a few years the I think then the mayor decided that against what the people had voted he would let the men marry men and the women marry women. The people had already decided on it but there was again another vote. Now I say.. Whats up with that? The people voted and decided! I am not sure if it was the mayor or not but he over ruled the will of the people. The people voted again anyways and they again said NO! MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN!

I must be an idiot and need some understanding. Will someone PLEASE instruct me? Isn't this coming decision buy the justices in a since the same as the described above?
 
I'm scared because if it goes wrong, that is it. Until someone figures out another angle to retry it.

And, to be honest we are talking about a larger issue than just the 2nd amendment.

At the core of this we are talking about States rights vs. Federal rights.

Should a state have the power to interrupt and enforce the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? I'm torn over this whole issue. I'm for small federal government, but at the same time I think all the states in the union should have some common laws.

No - we're talking about inalienable rights of the individual... not Federal rights, not State rights.

Either we have inalienable rights that pre-date any Constitution or pact, or we don't. Either the Second Amendment enumerates and affirms one such inalienable right, or it doesn't. That's really the question here...
 
Here is someone I think knows where I am coming from...

McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Gun Case

by Jim Butler, President SCRA
March 2010 GunNews







The Chicago 1982 handgun case McDonald v. City of Chicago, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010. The ban is being challenged by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation along with four individual plaintiffs.

The City of Chicago in its brief to the Supreme Court said its ban should be allowed in order to maintain what it calls "a system of ordered liberty." Whatever that means.

This phrase is used often in their brief. My guess is that it means that in their infinite wisdom the elite leaders of Chicago will allow ordinary people a limited amount of liberty as they see fit.

All this largess, in their minds at least, from one of the most corrupt city administrations in the United States. With many of its former members either in prison, going to prison, have already served time for their misdeeds, and either under investigation or already indicted at this time. One thing they have in common is their Chicago motto "where's mine." They act like a bunch of hogs around a trough at feeding time.

Chicago at this time has a severe shortage of revenue to finance vital city services. This is due in part to many of its corrupt officials, and their voracious friends. In spite of this shortage of revenue, Mayor Daley is still wasting money on the 1982 handgun ban that has been a proven failure.

Does "a system of ordered liberty" apply to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as Chicago claims? I think not.

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Chicago also contends that "the scope of the Second Amendment right also reflects the purpose to protect the militia rather than to further a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. It seems clear that they have never read the Federalist Papers.

Incredibly Chicago seems to be rearguing the issues in the Heller Washington, D.C. case in an attempt to salvage their handgun ban! The Supreme Court in the Heller case ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right not a collective right as Chicago is now claiming.

The most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is for preserving life and discouraging acts of criminal violence. For far too long the people of Chicago have been denied by a corrupt political system the most basic right of human beings -- The right of self-defense.

A handgun can be compared to insurance. You hope that you never need it but it's there in an emergency if you do.

Alan Gura the lead attorney for the lawsuit against Chicago said striking down the ban will bring with it the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states, through the 14th Amendment. This would limit state and local governments anti-gun measures, and the Chicago lawsuit provides that mechanism to do so.

For further information on the McDonald v. Chicago case follow the postings on chicagoguncase.com


Jim Butler's Commentaries

Sangamon County Rifle Association Home Page
 
So in 1982 Chicago government decides for all the people, that the people are going to forfeit their Constitutional rights at owning a firearm. The people were made by a tyrannical not optional decision? The people had no say? They could not vote on it? They just rolled over and took it? And now since they could not stand up on their own two feet they are gonna let some judges decide in fact they do have that right? UNBELIEVABLE!
 
So in 1982 Chicago government decides for all the people, that the people are going to forfeit their Constitutional rights at owning a firearm. The people were made by a tyrannical not optional decision? The people had no say? They could not vote on it? They just rolled over and took it? And now since they could not stand up on their own two feet they are gonna let some judges decide in fact they do have that right? UNBELIEVABLE!

There is a whole heck of a lot of unbelievable things that have occurred in this country and I believe much of it is due to the dumbing down of America via our schools. Read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto to see just how close we are to becoming a socialist nation.
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
We are a republic in name and memory only.
 
No - we're talking about inalienable rights of the individual... not Federal rights, not State rights.

Either we have inalienable rights that pre-date any Constitution or pact, or we don't. Either the Second Amendment enumerates and affirms one such inalienable right, or it doesn't. That's really the question here...

I don't disagree in theory. But the problem occurs when you try to prove legally. It is much easier to look at the something written down which supposedly everyone in the US follows and argue the points of that document.

Inalienable rights are all up to belief structure of the person who chooses to call them inalienable. There are clear examples of how different cultures have very different opinions on what inalienable rights exist.

Where as our US Constitution is the document which binds of our country together. Yes, there are ideals and beliefs behind it but it is (or should be) the condensed version of those beliefs and ideals which we all accept as our baseline.

But even then, we might disagree on how those are applied. Thus, the various crazy verdicts, laws, or enforcement policies. But then again, we do have three sections of government and they should, in theory balance their selves out... Right?
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top