Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
<broken link removed>
Please Sign
just debate the issue. contact your representatives and tell them how you feel. these petitions are ridiculous and make gun owners look stupid.
Which part of it was stupid?
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 5456.
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
I think a lot of the problem is that people feel very disenfranchised these days. Some California legislator wants to tell the entire nation that guns should be illegal. If the states would just take back a little power and tell the Fed to F off, the power would be centered a little closer to home for most people, and they would feel more connected to their elected officials. As we have it now, there's a bunch of political elites in ivory towers thousands of miles away from the voting populace. Both political parties love a strong federal government.
It'll never happen though because all of the states are addicted to federal money.
It works both ways though. If the feds lose the power to put their nose into these matters, that would also mean that feds wouldn't be able to protect the citizens when states decide to restrict some other things.
I'm not sure I follow. The states are sovereign. They should be protecting the people. The fed is there to keep the union together and defend us from foreign attacks.
If you mean things like same sex marriage, the states are already doing more than the feds in protecting the rights of the people. It makes sense too, because the closer your politicians are, the more likely they are to reflect the will of the people.
The way it is now is just a jumbled mess. State passes law, Fed says no way, takes away highway funding. State agrees. Fed gets bigger.
There used to be a reason we were 50 individual states.
So how would you protect gun ownership rights then ? Many states don't have a provision for that, and some (IL) simply ignore it.
Gun ownership doesn't need a legal provision. It's an enumerated right. No state or law can infringe on it. That fact that a few do, is another conversation altogether.
I despise what she is doing as much as the next reasonable gun owner, but nothing she is doing constitutes treason in any way.
I don't think the writer of this petition (or those so eager to sign it) understand what treason actually entails.
Working to change laws or amendments, either through congressional legislation, or trying to circumvent them via executive order, is not treason.
It may be sleazy. It may be deemed illegal by the courts, but it is not treason.
The states are sovereign.
Being able to administer their own laws and programs is not the same as sovereign. Not even close.