Posted on Aug 16, 2017
New 2nd Amendment Law Would Prevent States from Infringing on Citizens’ 2A Rights - Gun Owners of...
3.1K
50
23
8
8
0
Great writeup on the new laws coming into affect for all gun owners in California.
New 2nd Amendment Law Would Prevent States from Infringing on Citizens’ 2A Rights - Gun Owners of...
Posted from gunownersca.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Gun Control 2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
SSgt Christopher Brose
You're right, it should. But since it obviously doesn't, because anti-gun libs in Democrat controlled cities and states care more about control than they do about liberty, the 2nd Amendment can use some more teeth.
(4)
(0)
6
6
0
SCOTUS has stated that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. That federal guarantee of that right has been "incorporated", and now all states, even those without a similar enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms in their respective state constitutions, must honor that defined right of all U S citizens under the 14th Amendment.
SCOTUS has yet to rule on the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and what constitutes an infringement on that right. Until they do, any legislation broadening the RKBA will stand up to any challenge. Conversely, any law further limiting that right should be viewed as infringement, and therefore unconstitutional.
SCOTUS has yet to rule on the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and what constitutes an infringement on that right. Until they do, any legislation broadening the RKBA will stand up to any challenge. Conversely, any law further limiting that right should be viewed as infringement, and therefore unconstitutional.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
Slippery slope, messing the 2nd could very well back fire on conservatives. After all we are talking about N.Y. I trust them not.
(6)
(0)
SFC Pete Kain
SSgt Christopher Brose - By changing the 2nd amendment, the door is open to further changes, with the politicians we have now, Do you really trust any of them to protect our right to keep and bear arms? I don't.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SFC Pete Kain - The mind-boggling thing about your position is that you appear to be pro-2nd-Amendment, but you oppose a measure that would strengthen it -- and yet your rationale for opposing it is more applicable to the current anti-gun laws and politicians than the measure that would help offset them. Your thinking is backward.
By the way, nothing in the measure would change the 2nd Amendment. I don't know where you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment would be changed.
And you neglected to give an example of how you think this measure might "backfire on conservatives."
By the way, nothing in the measure would change the 2nd Amendment. I don't know where you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment would be changed.
And you neglected to give an example of how you think this measure might "backfire on conservatives."
(0)
(0)
SFC Pete Kain
SSgt Christopher Brose - I am paranoid about good intentions from politicians, The 2nd has already been infringed upon by the federal govt. Needing a license for an automatic weapon, a silencer, every time something happens or the liberals get scared new cries for tighter restrictions and new laws go up.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SFC Pete Kain - I don't disagree with any of that, and your paranoia is justified given liberal anti-gun political history. But those are all examples of politicians INTENDING to TIGHTEN restrictions on gun owners. This is an example of politicians INTENDING to LOOSEN restrictions on gun owners. I say we should support it.
(I wish we had the ability to use italics, I'd much prefer to add emphasis with italics than with all-caps.)
(I wish we had the ability to use italics, I'd much prefer to add emphasis with italics than with all-caps.)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google