• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who are our Friends?

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
Who can we claim as being "on our side" in the general area of weapons choice, carry, and freedom? This will necessarily be spread over all carry types. I will list a few, maybe you all could add some more:

1) Gun Owners of America. I consider these people, the Pratt boys and Tim Macy, to be top of the line.
2) 10th Amendment Foundation. While this title does not say 2nd Amendment, Michael Boldin is vary active in all constitutional areas.
3) Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These are both Alen Gotlieb and he does an lot of legal case work.
4) Firearms Coalition, the Hard Corps. There are several groups with similar names. This is Jeff Knox, son of Neal Knox, former NRA board member.
5) Knife Rights, a Sharper Future. I Open Carry my knife sometimes.
6) National Rifle Association. Well, they do a lot of good but have current financial and core 2nd Amendment fidelity issues.

HLB
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,681
Location
here nc
Janet Jackson said it best...

“WHAT HAVE YA DONE FOR US LATELY”
1. GOA’s site w/latest fact sheets & accomplishments are dated 2018...nothing going on in this nation in 2019?
2. As a truism, the tenth amendment doesn't really add anything new to the Constitution as the site regurgitates rhetoric info and linking it to vague and no substance constitutional references.
3. SAF’s site indicates political back slapping activities and discussing knife restrictions?
4. Coalition seems to be personal unsubstantiated rambling political rhetoric from ‘ammoland’ [interesting first two hits was sept’s ~ please donate]
5. Knife rights and 2nd amendment seem contraindicated?
6. NRA ILA organization in serious mismanagement chaos similar to 1970 era...training side still the leading and most emulated firearm training org in the US for citizens & LEs and the training standard for majority of state’s concealed privilege permits.

So HLB...being on “our side” i failed to discern any of these who are stepping out for OC’g or even jumping and down for anything except rhetoric blurbs but nothing of activism against those who are pushing the anti agenda, e.g. bloomies, mommies, gillford, WA/OR initiatives, NY/MD/SC/NJ restrictions etc.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
NGOA was instrumental in getting rid of the ccdw requirement that was pushed on kentuckians in the 90s when we could have as easily gotten cc with no permit instead.
And out spent the NRA, in actual lobbying efforts.

NRA, I haven't considered a friend of the RTKABA for quite a while.

One politician I am sure of in ky is Massey.
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Like sands through the hourglass so are the statutes regulating your rights.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 - Supreme Court 1876

“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Heller. Heller affirms Cruikshank by stating:

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right ‘is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.’ 92 U. S., at 553.”

Heller also said:

“The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

USSC has also declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

Even though the USSC has made it clear that the federal and state governments lack any constitutional power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, the USSC usurped that power by declaring that an absolute is not absolute at all. That being a legal fraud and until the USSC reverses that opinion the feds, states and the courts will treat your right as a privilege. And, they all know you will never use force to take back your right. They win, we lose.
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
And, they all know you will never use force to take back your right. They win, we lose.
Well, the obese lady has not sung too loudly yet. In spite of what any court says, the Law and the Constitution mean exactly what the creators felt when they wrote it. Of course, the ones in power can roll over you with their vast resources, but no Supreme Court decision negates the declared meaning that was signed in to existence by duly elected representatives. I have read summaries of the major 2nd amendment decisions and will read more on the matter. In the mean time, I am fighting for my rights along with some pretty good organizations and other individuals. I will post a link in the Mississippi section that we are working on now. Your support would be appreciated.
HLB
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,681
Location
here nc
Well, the obese lady has not sung too loudly yet. In spite of what any court says, the Law and the Constitution mean exactly what the creators felt when they wrote it.

snipp...

HLB
which law & constitutional interpretational are you following...Todays? Or originalist/textualist?

world of difference from the research ...
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,270
Location
northern wis
Knife rights and 2nd amendment seem contraindicated?
\
contraindicated

adjective

English Language Learners Definition of contraindicated

medical —used to say that something (such as a treatment, procedure, or activity) should not be done or used in a particular situation for medical reasons

Do not know what that has to do with the Knife rights organization.

But they are a great organization that has changed many states knife laws for the better.

Knife rights go hand and hand with bearing arms of many types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HLB

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
There is a BIG difference between knives and guns. What was the object designed for or intended to be used for? If the definition of a term keeps changing then we will never know what is truly meant, definition, definition, definition.
5th. Black's Law Dictionary:
"Weapon. An instrument of offensive or defensive combat, or anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating or injuring a person. The term is chiefly used, in law, in the statutes prohibiting the carrying of "concealed" or "deadly" weapons."

Let's not conflate the two.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,381
Location
White Oak Plantation
Use a knife to cut your steak...not a weapon, use the same knife to cut your neighbor...weapon...

Use a gun to lawfully take game for food...evil, vile, murderer you are...use the same gun to lawfully defend yourself from a violent criminal...evil, vile, murderer you are...

...unless you are a cop...of course...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Use a knife to cut your steak...not a weapon, use the same knife to cut your neighbor...weapon...

Use a gun to lawfully take game for food...evil, vile, murderer you are...use the same gun to lawfully defend yourself from a violent criminal...evil, vile, murderer you are...

...unless you are a cop...of course...
Is that the definition of PETA?
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
which law & constitutional interpretational are you following...Todays? Or originalist/textualist?

world of difference from the research ...
Hello solus,
Here is how I do it. The law was written. Then it was signed. At that point it became law. It meant what they intended it to mean then. Then time passes. Now I read the law. I assign the meaning that to me is obvious given what I know of the creators and the English language. I then apply that meaning to my situation. I do not employ anybody else to do that work for me. Therefore, it is my meaning, not originalist or textualist or today.
HLB
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,681
Location
here nc
So HLB, et al., the learned bigotry, biases, as well as period meanings and background material which have been morphed into those documents we hold dear over the last 150 years have been misinterpreted by courts, bigots, biased writers of ‘their perception of history’, re-written history by the next set of ‘historians’, ad nauseam.

like the newspeek/social media promoting the propagation of misinformation, real or perceived, to this nation’s citizenry which you promote as Gospel to anyone who listens and isn’t quick enough to discern the myths about the founding father’s true meaning of their writing believes it.

bottom line is your interpretation might be grossly in error!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
No one. Not the supreme court or anyone else has ever been granted power to " interpret the constitution ".
The constitution clear as air as to what it means.

Even Marbury vs Madison and that power grab by SCOTUS did not do that.

Marbury vs Madison ,the court ruled itself the power to interpret laws passed by congress to see if they were repugnant to what the constitution states, or not.

They were never granted the authority in any manner to "interpret the constitution ".
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,681
Location
here nc
Ghost...
if i told you have made me “angry” ~ what is your life time experience interpretation of what i just told you?
i’m upset?
i’m PO’d?
i’m frustrated?
i’m annoyed?

and we’re in the same time era and the simple ‘clearly understood’ message from this sender to you, the receiver, might be misinterpreted...HUH!

There are five basic sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution:
(1) the text and structure of the Constitution,
(2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question,
(3) prior precedents (usually judicial),
(4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and
(5) natural law.

Robert Bork Making the Case for Originalism:

If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law, is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended. If the Constitution is law, then presumably, like all other law, the meaning the lawmakers intended is as binding upon judges as it is upon legislatures and executives. There is no other sense in which the Constitution can be what article VI proclaims it to be: "Law...." This means, of course, that a judge, no matter on what court he sits, may never create new constitutional rights or destroy old ones. Any time he does so, he violates not only the limits to his own authority but, and for that reason, also violates the rights of the legislature and the people....the philosophy of original understanding is thus a necessary inference from the structure of government apparent on the face of the Constitution.

[see cite for in-depth definitions here:
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
The problem with compounded interpretation of the Constitution is that it builds a massive amount of information that is about impossible to track and more easily morphed to unintended meaning by those with a personal agenda. The wording of the Constitution is more simple and therefore less prone to miss-interpretation. The 2nd Amendment is centered around a few words, not volumes of case text. The creators have already done the work for us when they incorporated all the previous meaning in to their own words. We don't need to re-do that. Just the few words that the creators used to paint their own meaning, not anybody else's.
HLB
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,681
Location
here nc
Let’s start at the founding father’s of basic concept of “What was washington’s purpose for insisting on the second amendment wording?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Ghost...
if i told you have made me “angry” ~ what is your life time experience interpretation of what i just told you?
i’m upset?
i’m PO’d?
i’m frustrated?
i’m annoyed?

and we’re in the same time era and the simple ‘clearly understood’ message from this sender to you, the receiver, might be misinterpreted...HUH!

There are five basic sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution:
(1) the text and structure of the Constitution,
(2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question,
(3) prior precedents (usually judicial),
(4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and
(5) natural law.

Robert Bork Making the Case for Originalism:

If the Constitution is law, then presumably its meaning, like that of all other law, is the meaning the lawmakers were understood to have intended. If the Constitution is law, then presumably, like all other law, the meaning the lawmakers intended is as binding upon judges as it is upon legislatures and executives. There is no other sense in which the Constitution can be what article VI proclaims it to be: "Law...." This means, of course, that a judge, no matter on what court he sits, may never create new constitutional rights or destroy old ones. Any time he does so, he violates not only the limits to his own authority but, and for that reason, also violates the rights of the legislature and the people....the philosophy of original understanding is thus a necessary inference from the structure of government apparent on the face of the Constitution.

[see cite for in-depth definitions here:
If you said angry then I know your angry. If not you would use one of the other terms.

Founders said not infringed. Means not limited nor interfered with same as it did back then.

No judge, politician nor lawyer can point to anything in the 2A that gives them the authority to do so.

Never have been able too can't now and never will be able too. Cause it ain't there.
 

HLB

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
38
Let’s start at the founding father’s of basic concept of “What was washington’s purpose for insisting on the second amendment wording?
We could, and should, and that and other's words of the time is an interesting study. Still, ultimately, the words "people", "arms", and "infringed" are the power of the 2nd Amendment. Jump forward 200+ years and there are many so many instances of that contract not only being infringed, but forcefully denied to me personally, that light conversation fades in relevance. I feel urgency is necessary to keep evil deeds from dominating the land.
HLB
 
Top