The 2A does not exsist in California

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Does anyone else find this strangely ironic?

http://www.kogo.com/pages/kogo_local_news.html?feed=125548&article=2459408

Billionaire's Son Guilty Of Firearms Charge

The La Jolla resident paid more than $10,000 for three Romanian AK-47 rifles and other weapons, knowing they were obtained out of state.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Harry Maxwell Rady, son of Ernest Rady, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of receipt of firearms without a license.

The 40-year-old faces a maximum of five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine when sentenced Oct. 22.

The younger Rady admitted that he received the weapons between February and May of this year from the unlicensed seller.

In addition to the Romanian rifles, Harry Maxwell Rady purchased a Smith & Wesson .357-caliber pistol, two FNH 57, 5.7x28MM handguns, two FNH PS 90 5.7x28MM rifles, one HK91 .308-caliber rifle and one FN 5.7 handgun, according to court documents.

The weapons purchases occurred shortly after the Rady family home in La Jolla was robbed earlier this year.

[fury2neon]

Well, you know, California does not want its criminal population to be harmed by their formerly law abiding citizens... Criminals can get hurt or killed when when people defend themselves.

[DaveTN]

They are going after this guy hard. I want to hear the story of how him, the weapons and the cops all to came to be in the same place at the same time.

<O:p</O:p

You can’t own handguns in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City>Chicago</st1:City> and now they are trying to outlaw all .50 cal rifles statewide. Barrack Obama wants to outlaw all semi-auto firearms; only he wants to do it for the whole country.

<O:p</O:p

But I don’t think you face 5 years in Federal prison for it.

</O:p

[towerclimber37]

They are going after this guy hard. I want to hear the story of how him, the weapons and the cops all to came to be in the same place at the same time.

<o></o>

You can’t own handguns in <st1:city>Chicago</st1:city> and now they are trying to outlaw all .50 cal rifles statewide. Barrack Obama wants to outlaw all semi-auto firearms; only he wants to do it for the whole country.

<o></o>

But I don’t think you face 5 years in Federal prison for it.

he can outlaw them if he likes..we'll ignore him...

if he doesn't like that..then we'll pay attention to him and then he'll wish we ignored him!

[molonlabetn]

It exists... it just hasn't been fought for by 'the people' recently to claim and exercise it.

[DaveTN]

It exists... it just hasn't been fought for by 'the people' recently to claim and exercise it.

You know… the gun haters could not hope for a better battle plan than a bunch of pro-gun citizens hanging their right to carry firearms on the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment. They don’t have to do anything but sit back and watch..... and laugh.

<O:p</O:p

Oh wait…. That’s what’s happening right now.

[molonlabetn]

You know… the gun haters could not hope for a better battle plan than a bunch of pro-gun citizens hanging their right to carry firearms on the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment. They don’t have to do anything but sit back and watch..... and laugh.

<O:p</O:p

Oh wait…. That’s what’s happening right now.

Really?

[DaveTN]

Really?

Yes really. Roll your eyes all you want, but don’t post up a map that shows states that will sell you firearms privileges and claim it has anything to do with the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment. The title of this thread was the 2A does not exist in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>California</st1:State>.

[molonlabetn]

Yes really. Roll your eyes all you want, but don’t post up a map that shows states that will sell you firearms privileges and claim it has anything to do with the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment. The title of this thread was the 2A does not exist in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>California</st1:State>.

So, the state of things would be the same without the 2nd Amendment? I find that hard to believe.

The RKBA does not originate with the 2nd Amendment, but 2A does have alot to do with the preservation of that right.

[Mike.357]

If you need a govt' permit to carry and gov't permission to buy something then it is not a right.

And as for what 2A means, since the gov't determines this, it will take SCOTUS to explain it to the masses.

And I do not think either side wants to chance what might be said if it was addressed properly.

How many of you want a simple answer, one that cannot be overturned ever?

Guns or no guns. Does anyone want the finality of that risk?

[DaveTN]

So, the state of things would be the same without the 2nd Amendment? I find that hard to believe.

Absolutely. Name the states on your map that recognize the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment as an individual right.

The RKBA does not originate with the 2nd Amendment, but 2A does have alot to do with the preservation of that right.

No it dosen't The Federal Courts have ruled that it protects the states and does not apply to you. The only authority left is the SCOTUS and up until know have refused to hear those cases; leaving them up to the Federal Districts. Therefore it is not a right for anyone in any state.

That piece of paper that you so proudly claim gives you some right is nothing more than a privilege that you are renting from the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee.</st1:State> A state that does not recognize the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment as an individual right anymore than <st1:State>California</st1:State> or <st1:State><ST1:pIllinois</st1:State>.

</O:p

[Guest Phantom6]

That piece of paper that you so proudly claim gives you some right is nothing more than a privilege that you are renting from the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee.</st1:State> A state that does not recognize the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment as an individual right anymore than <st1:State>California</st1:State> or <st1:State><ST1:pIllinois</st1:State>.

</O:p

DaveTN, clarify something for me please. Just what piece of paper are you refering to here? Sometimes I'm a little slow and I need to have things spelled out for me.

[DaveTN]

DaveTN, clarify something for me please. Just what piece of paper are you refering to here? Sometimes I'm a little slow and I need to have things spelled out for me.

Handgun carry permit.

[molonlabetn]

The RKBA does not originate from the government, either... no government, for that matter, holds sway over whether or not any particular right exists. They can only choose whether to recognize or violate them.

For example, anyone would agree that they have a right to life... but if a government decided to regulate how long people may live, by euthenizing people over a certain age, etc... does that mean that there is no such thing as a 'right to life' because of the imposed interference by the government?

No.

It simply means that right is being violated.

[Mike.357]

The RKBA does not originate from the government, either

In Tennessee it most surely does. I have a piece of paper from TDOS that states carrying a handgun is a priviledge. Their words.

[molonlabetn]

What if they distributed papers which stated that owning firearms, period, was a priviledge? Or that being alive was a priviledge? Does that make it so?

[DaveTN]

What if they distributed papers which stated that owning firearms, period, was a priviledge? Or that being alive was a priviledge? Does that make it so?

If one state or one city passes laws that violate the Constitution, and nothing is done to remedy the problem… no one has that right.

[molonlabetn]

If one state or one city passes laws that violate the Constitution, and nothing is done to remedy the problem… no one has that right.

It would seem to me that the accurate conclusion is that there are conflicting documents regarding the right, neither of which is the origin or ultimate authority thereof.

[The Rabbi]

The RKBA does not originate from the government, either... no government, for that matter, holds sway over whether or not any particular right exists. They can only choose whether to recognize or violate them.

For example, anyone would agree that they have a right to life... but if a government decided to regulate how long people may live, by euthenizing people over a certain age, etc... does that mean that there is no such thing as a 'right to life' because of the imposed interference by the government?

No.

It simply means that right is being violated.

Well, actually rights do originate in the government. If the gov't says you have no right to own weapons, then you don't. Period. There is no constructive difference between a right denied and a right that doesnt exist.

As for the OP, CA has its own RKBA in its state constitution. This is why total banning of handguns has failed. All the guns mentioned (or most anyway) in the story, are forbidden under CA law. Guy should have known that. If he didnt like it, move.

[Mike.357]

What if they distributed papers which stated that owning firearms, period, was a priviledge? Or that being alive was a priviledge? Does that make it so?

Doesn't form 4473 make gun purchasing a priviledge?. It does make it so.

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't form 4473 make gun purchasing a priviledge?. It does make it so.

No. Form 4473 insures that the transferee is not a prohibited person. That is different.

[molonlabetn]

Well, actually rights do originate in the government. If the gov't says you have no right to own weapons, then you don't. Period. There is no constructive difference between a right denied and a right that doesnt exist.

As for the OP, CA has its own RKBA in its state constitution. This is why total banning of handguns has failed. All the guns mentioned (or most anyway) in the story, are forbidden under CA law. Guy should have known that. If he didnt like it, move.

By that reasoning, one must view the government as the ultimate authority on any right... not to be questioned.

The authority of any government comes from its ability to force people to do things (or not do things), whether that be by majority influence or the whim of a dictator. The entire reason why the 2nd Amendment was enumerated to protect the RKBA, was as a recourse for the people to not be bullied.

Going against a Constitution, or restricting its meaning, is not so much an infringement of rights, in and of itself; but is an unmistakable sign that the government has no respect for individual freedom. That is certainly worth questioning the 'ultimate' authority of the government over.

[molonlabetn]

Handgun carry permit.

All that a HCP permits me to do is leave my property.

[The Rabbi]

By that reasoning, one must view the government as the ultimate authority on any right... not to be questioned.

The authority of any government comes from its ability to force people to do things (or not do things), whether that be by majority influence or the whim of a dictator. The entire reason why the 2nd Amendment was enumerated to protect the RKBA, was as a recourse for the people to not be bullied.

Going against a Constitution, or restricting its meaning, is not so much an infringement of rights, in and of itself; but is an unmistakable sign that the government has no respect for individual freedom. That is certainly worth questioning the 'ultimate' authority of the government over.

No, that makes a separation between the government and the people. That is a false dichotomy, especially in a representative democracy. The people elect representatives, who pass laws that basically mirror societal values. Judges interpret those laws based on societal norms. It is no accident that the "right to privacy" didnt come around until the 1970s.

[molonlabetn]

No, that makes a separation between the government and the people. That is a false dichotomy, especially in a representative democracy. The people elect representatives, who pass laws that basically mirror societal values. Judges interpret those laws based on societal norms. It is no accident that the "right to privacy" didnt come around until the 1970s.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law... not societal norms.

The 'right to privacy' term may have been coined in the 70s... but the idea behind it even predates the 4th Amendment.