Connecticut Looks To Be Latest State To Attempt A Firearms Safe Storage Law

The New York state assembly, which never met a gun control for law abiding citizens idea they didn’t like, just passed their own

(Livingston County News) Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes, R-Caledonia, says legislation passed by the state Legislature that requires gun owners to keep firearms in a locked cabinet or equipped with a trigger-locking device, especially in households with children younger than 16 years old, is “overly restrictive.”

The state Assembly and Senate passed the law (S2450/A2686) on March 4, five weeks after lawmakers approved a package of other gun-control measures.

The latest measure, sponsored by Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, and Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Westchester, makes it a misdemeanor offense to fail to securely store a rifle, shotgun or other firearm or render it incapable of being fired when a child is in a home.

Assembly and Senate Republicans who voted against the measure said it’s an infringement on Second Amendment rights to bear arms and could leave a gun owner defenseless against intruders.

As usual, this negatively effects law abiding gun owners, not criminals who use them. Funny how almost every gun law Democrats push hurts the law abiding, eh?

Hearing on Connecticut gun bills expected to draw large crowd

Advocates for gun rights and gun control are expected to pack a Connecticut legislative hearing on several firearms bills, including measures that would tighten safe storage laws and require people openly carrying guns to produce their permits if police ask.

The legislation to be debated Monday at a Judiciary Committee hearing in Hartford has spurred a flood of written testimony that has been submitted to the panel, both for and against the bills.

The safe storage proposal was drafted in response to the death of 15-year-old Ethan Song, who accidentally shot himself in the head with a handgun owned by his friend’s father in their hometown of Guilford in January 2018.

The friend’s father had kept his three guns secured with gun locks in a plastic container in his bedroom closet, but the keys to the locks and ammunition also were in the container, police said.

Prosecutors said they could not charge the friend’s father under the state’s existing safe gun storage law, because it requires only loaded guns to be safely stored and there was no evidence the guns were stored loaded.

Gun control advocates including Ethan’s mother, Kristin Song, said the new bill, called “Ethan’s Law,” would save lives by requiring all guns – loaded or unloaded – to be safely stored. Violating the law would be a felony carrying a prison sentence of one to five years.

Essentially, this would make having a firearm for home defense worthless, unless you plan on carrying it on you while at home. But, would you have it on you while sleeping? It appears as if putting it on the nightstand would violate safe storage.

How will they enforce this, though? Will they send law enforcement to check up on this? Ask kids to narc on their parents or their friends’ parents? And why do Democrats always want to make it harder for law abiding citizens while going easy on actual criminals?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

43 Responses to “Connecticut Looks To Be Latest State To Attempt A Firearms Safe Storage Law”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    Looks like the sort of law that is intended to make gun ownership more of a pain in the neck to the owner so that they will choose to self-disarm. It is also instructive to see how much effort Democrats put into preventing the exceptionally rare events like school shootings and accidental discharges by children and then they go on to totally ignore the hundreds of kids killed every year in public schools. They force kids to attend public schools no matter how many are killed on the highways to get there. Hint: it’s a much bigger problem than school shootings. They ignore the thousands of times every year that children are molested by their teachers and the tens of thousands of times children are assaulted or raped by other students. EVERY. YEAR. It’s a matter of scale. Politicians, particularly Democrat ones, always focus their efforts on the irrelevant fads and emotional song and dance of naming their legislation after some recent victim. Meanwhile, nothing gets done on the real problems.

  2. Kye says:

    Professor, to leftists us owning guns IS the real problem. I see where the Democrat-Communists voted to lower the voting age to 16. Aren’t they also in favor of raising the age to buy a firearm to 25? How do those two things jive?

    I also see where Media Matters, the communist anti American PAC/lobby/media is calling for advertisers to boycott Tucker Carlson for comments they say are “misogynist” made in 2006-2011.
    Having ten other completely leftist networks isn’t good enough they must ruin any conservative anywhere and destroy his career. What wonderful people these communists in our midst are.

    They will undoubtedly keep pushing until fighting back with guns is all we have left then they’ll say we’re violent. Here’s this week’s DemCom roster:

    The Democrats in the House voted against a resolution to excluding illegal aliens from voting to U.S. elections
    The Democrats in the House voted as a block to lower the voting age for all federal elections from 18 to 16
    The Democrats in the House refused to vote on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in general and Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism in particular. Choosing instead to condemn all bigotry.
    Jussie Smollett was indicted on 16 felony charges
    Major blackout (trigger!) in the socialist paradise of Venezuela
    Anti-Semite and hater Ilhan Omar tries to BLAME the reporter who quoted her saying Obama got ‘away with murder’ on drone strikes for ‘distorting’ her words, then releases audio of her interview that proves the journalist was right
    Bruce Ohr reveals that he collaborated with British spy and Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele while he was writing the Steele Dossier
    High School girls in Arizona were kicked off campus for wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ attire on Spirit Day. When did it become offensive in America to support our President?

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Kye typed: boycott Tucker Carlson

    Listen, we all know what FASCIST News is. And what “men” like *ucker believe. Anarchy. If a man can’t protect his teenage daughter from old rapists like Epstein, that’s on the dad, not the old rapist.

    *ucker Carlson said: I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don’t think it’s the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.
    CO-HOST: Yeah, it’s — you know what it is? It’s much more planned out and plotted.
    THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost — you almost should put a premeditation —
    CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let’s be honest about it.

    And FASCIST News resident plastic surgery expert Jeanine Pirro thinks that wearing a hijab
    “antithetical to the US Constitution”. She should read the First Amendment.

    And the white boyz carrying torches shouting “Jews Won’t Replace Us!” are good people.

    • formwiz says:

      Kye typed: boycott Tucker Carlson

      Sorry, didn’t see it and I suspect your little transcript is every bit as phony.

      Well, Fascist News and Fake News have the same initials for a reason. Fake News is the news put out by the Fascists.

      If a man can’t protect his teenage daughter from old rapists like Epstein, that’s on the dad, not the old rapist.

      (been waiting for this one) You don’t believe child traffickers and rapists should be punished by law? Is what liljeffy says true?

      Sounds like you don’t believe in the Rule of Law, only the rule of the mob – the lynch mob.

      And FASCIST News resident plastic surgery expert Jeanine Pirro thinks that wearing a hijab
      “antithetical to the US Constitution”. She should read the First Amendment.

      Sge’s only started wearing a rag on her head since she got into politics.

      And no one would improve more than you by actually reading the 1st Amendment, instead of copying and pasting it.

      And the white boyz carrying torches shouting “Jews Won’t Replace Us!” are good people.

      Gee whiz, sounds more like Congressional Democrats kissing the ass of a loud-mouthed Moslem.

      • formwiz says:

        PS ICYMI Harvey’s little rant about Carlson was WRT a Dr Evil-sponsored hit that happened in the early part of this century where he punked the Howard Stern milieu.

  4. Kye says:

    Yes, we all do know what FASCIST News is. It’s news controlled by the government. Now you claim to “know” what “men like Tucker believe” (I assume that means all white men not communist or cucked by fags, women and trannies). How exactly did you come to the opinion Tucker is an anarchist? And what does the Big Donor and Hillary/Obama supporter Epstein have to do with either Tucker or anarchy?

    Tucker said things ten years ago leftist don’t like today. He should not only not apologize (since that means every word ever uttered by anyone no matter how long ago and in no matter what contex can ruin a person. Very PolPot of you commissar) he should tell them to go f**K themselves. No reasonable person (which excludes you Elwood) can expect every word that everyone says at all times to be perfect and beyond reproach. If they do they are idiots.

    Pirro and I are both fully informed on the first amendment. Nowhere in it does it say religions at war with the United States are protected, and common sense they’re not. Mohammadans should be thrown out of this country until they stop their jihad. You are a fool if you allow the enemy to use our Constitution against us. You would make our Constitution into a suicide pact. You do realize there are limits on all our freedoms in the Constitution. Can you scream “Fire” in a theater? Even slander is a limit to free speech. You yourself are constantly supporting new and clever ways to subvert the Second amendment yet you think allowing the enemy to hide behind the First is just adorable. Quisling!

    And the “white boyz carrying torches” only existed in your leftist countries and now only in your mind. This is America, white boyz carrying torches are not the problem, illegal aliens bringing in crime, disease and drugs and terrorists bombing us are.

    P.S. It’s your New Red Democrat-Communist/Nazi Party that has the anti Jew problem not Tucker, Pirro or any of us. Quisling!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye typed: Mohammadans (sic) should be thrown out of this country until they stop their jihad.

      You want to deport Americans based on their religion? I’m sure the Supreme Court will find that objectionable. Why not just round up all US Muslims and pack them in train cars and send them to concentration camps? Or would you prefer to just gas them all outright?

      One of your heroic white boyz carrying torches and whining about Jews, bravely drove his car into a crowd, injuring several and murdering one. “good people”, indeed.

      *ucker Carlson claimed charging men with statutory rape of young girls is unfair. He’s your pig, you can have him.

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        Why do you say Islam is a religion and not a cult or geopolitical movement with the ultimate destruction of any given country is which it festers. Don’t you agree that by defending Islam that you are also defending and approving of the KKK as they have similar but less violent views. Also, since you align yourself with the socialist, communist why do you hate Jews.

      • Kye says:

        “You want to deport Americans based on their religion?”

        How’s your reading comprehension? I want disloyal people deported or imprisoned based on the fact they are at war with us not their religion, but if they all happen to have the same religion there is nothing I can do about it. If Catholics declared war on America I’d want them deported too. Not because they’re Catholics but because they’re our enemy. How hard is that to grasp? You do know what a jihad is, don’t you? You automatically defer to “rounding up” people, “Train cars” “concentration camps” and “gassing people” when it’s your team who does these things, not mine. Why would you allow the enemy to live among us until they get strong enough to destroy us? That makes no sens. Would you have allowed Nazi’s to immigrate in 1943? Red Guard in 1956? What in your mind makes Mohammadans any different? Because they’re a Theocracy wrapped in a religion gives them a pass in common sense?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Are you certain a religion can declare war? Do you think all Muslims bear some responsibility… actually what DO you think they are responsible for? 9/11?

          It seems Catholics are doing more damage to American children than Muslims. Do you want only the priests deported or imprisoned or ALL Catholics that still support the church?

          We’ll indulge you. How will you determine which Americans are disloyal and which are not? By what they say or type? By how they look? By what they read?

          Would you judge me as a disloyal American to be deported?

          You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          What corner? I don’t see a corner. Can you read? Can you understand what you read? NOT. Yes, we can and should make war against a religion whose stated objective is our death. Yes, all Muslims are complicit in the mirror of what we call extremist.

          Catholics are actively policing their own. Muslims are not.

          Then the best, are you an enemy? YES. The worst type. You are a stupid little man child. Look in the mirror, you are our major problem.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Would you have me, and those who agree with me, deported or locked up for our beliefs?

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff,
            You want to fundamentally change the government, our economy and we’ll bring on a bunch of kids and hoax. So, you are an enemy.

      • formwiz says:

        First, what’s sic about saying Mohammedans. Perfectly acceptable English name for them.

        You want to deport Americans based on their religion? I’m sure the Supreme Court will find that objectionable. Why not just round up all US Muslims and pack them in train cars and send them to concentration camps? Or would you prefer to just gas them all outright?

        Nah, send them home where they apparently want to be would be OK. And the issue is not their religion, it’s their loyalty. Zippy and the Hildabeast imported 70,000 of them to take over a Congressional district (undoubtedly a model for the future) on the promise of free stuff wall-to-wall, so they were invited for political purposes; they didn’t ask to come.

        And Kye made it conditional on stopping their allegiance with terrorism, so, once again, you’re a liar.

        One of your heroic white boyz carrying torches and whining about Jews, bravely drove his car into a crowd, injuring several and murdering one. “good people”, indeed.

        As opposed to Hell’s Harem being mobbed up with Hamas? Yeah, I can see why you want them to stay. They’re doing the work on the Jews the Demos can’t bring themselves to.

        *ucker Carlson claimed charging men with statutory rape of young girls is unfair. He’s your pig, you can have him.

        Again, he was punking Howard Stern and it’s a set up by Dr Evil, so *ucker yourself.

        So screw the Supremes

        One of your heroic w

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          It was misspelled.

          H&R Block typed: Zippy and the Hildabeast imported 70,000 of them to take over a Congressional district

          You’re repeating right-wing nonsense. A few thousand Somali immigrants settled in the 5th District of MN during the Obama terms. More settled during the Bush terms. So blame Bush! Representative Omar won in a landslide in a Democratic district. Try another lie. This one is debunked. (A conservative friend emailed the 70,000 Somali meme to me today too).

          What is your legal justification for deporting them?

          How would you assess their loyalty?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          What do the Quadruplets have in common? They all deny reality.

          Qa, Qb, Qc, Qd… any of you.

          One question: How do you determine who is loyal and who is not, so you can deport or imprison them?

  5. Kye says:

    Here’s some of your Mohammadan friends in Philly. You guys have a lot in common.

    https://youtu.be/T_5tbVZct3A

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Sounds like a Klan rally! Fundamentalism, whether Muslim or Christian, is the worst form of these religions. We hear there are even Muslims and Christians who think their Holy books are accurate history, even The Word of God or Allah! Can you believe that?

      We understand why the right now wants to project their disdain for Jews on liberals, but remember your young white heroes marching and chanting, “Jews Won’t Replace Us!”? Not a Muslim amongst them. But likely a lot of “Christians.” Probably few Jews or liberals either.

      And not a lot in common with religious fundamentalists, as I see no evidence to support the existence of Allah, or Yahweh, or God etc. And Jews are not the evil that neoNazis and fundamentalist Muslims and Christians claim. Most Muslims, Christians, atheists/agnostics and Jews are good people. Same with Shintoists, Taoists, animists, Wiccans, Buddhists and Hindus!

      And I cannot support politicians or movements that promote discrimination based on religion. But it sounds as if you would. Below you can read our First Amendment. Our Supreme Court would not agree with you that kicking out Americans based on their religion would be Constitutional. Are you afraid that if the NuLibs take control of government that they’ll try to deport fundamentalist Christians? Is that your fear? Again it’s projection. Of course YOU would stop all immigration of non-white, non-Christians and deport all Muslims already here.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      • formwiz says:

        Haven’t seen any Christian fundamentalists blowing up skyscrapers or beheading people, so you lie again.

        And Christianity is a lot more accurate history than the lies of Communism.

        We understand why the right now wants to project their disdain for Jews on liberals, but remember your young white heroes marching and chanting, “Jews Won’t Replace Us!”? Not a Muslim amongst them. But likely a lot of “Christians.” Probably few Jews or liberals either.

        As always, your little voices are lying, or at least making unproven assumptions.

        Not a Moslem among them? How do you know? And you assume “Christians”. You know how that always ends up.

        Actually they were Nazis and Der Fuhrer was their god. The Krauts had no use for Christianity. Somebody who claims to be such an expert on Der Sturmer ought to know that. As for Liberals, considering how they let Hell’s Harem say all manner of anti-Semitic things, I wouldn’t count on no Lefties being there.

        As we all know, when you assume you make an ass of u in front of me.

        What I’d like to know is why you obsess about an isolated incident 2 years ago involving a small group of nutcases. Could it be they just don’t have that many white racist incidents to your liking? Could it be that’s all you’ve got in the face of so many Leftist hate crimes?

        And not a lot in common with religious fundamentalists, as I see no evidence to support the existence of Allah, or Yahweh, or God etc. And Jews are not the evil that neoNazis and fundamentalist Muslims and Christians claim. Most Muslims, Christians, atheists/agnostics and Jews are good people. Same with Shintoists, Taoists, animists, Wiccans, Buddhists and Hindus!

        Not sure where you and your little voices were going with this (you and your little voices should lay off the weed when you type), but any intelligent human being can see the existence of God simply in that were are here. The miracle of creation.

        Even “science” can’t explain how the universe was created. Somebody did it and it wasn’t Karl Marx. That said, many intelligent people have strongly believed in the existence of God, but only fools abd losers believe in Communism.

        And I cannot support politicians or movements that promote discrimination based on religion. But it sounds as if you would. Below you can read our First Amendment. Our Supreme Court would not agree with you that kicking out Americans based on their religion would be Constitutional. Are you afraid that if the NuLibs take control of government that they’ll try to deport fundamentalist Christians? Is that your fear? Again it’s projection. Of course YOU would stop all immigration of non-white, non-Christians and deport all Muslims already here.

        well, then obviously, you must go over to the Dark Side and stand with Donald Trump because it’s the Left that’s siding with the anti-Semites

        And again, Kye was talking about their loyalty and their danger to the country.

        You just can’t stop lying can you?

        the NuLibs take control of government? In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, “That’s rich. I’ll say. Oh! It is to laugh”. I remember when they tried that before. 1972. one of the worst blowouts the Demos ever had.

        But that is your little wet dream, isn’t it? they’ll try to deport fundamentalist Christians?, right? You can’t wait for it so you can get even with all those terrible white people who made this country

        And it is projection. You’re a textbook case.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Just because you can paste it in doesn’t mean you know what it means. The Left has been packing the courts with judges who would go along with the agenda, but Trump and McConnell are finishing that. If he keeps appointing judges at this pace, half of the Federal bench will be his.

        Is that what scares you, little girl?

  6. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    As usual, this negatively effects law abiding gun owners, not criminals who use them. Funny how almost every gun law Democrats push hurts the law abiding, eh?

    Let me be blunt here: any gun control law which impacted criminals rather than the law-abiding would have a disparate negative impact on black Americans, and little at all on whites. Therefore the left could never vote for such a thing.

    • Kye says:

      Allow me to be blunt here, Dana. ALL laws have a desperate negative impact on blacks save perhaps laws about criminal banking and/or accounting.

      • Professor Hale says:

        Laws to keep illegal immigrants out of America (and effective barriers to prevent them) would have a net positive impact on American Blacks. Makes you wonder why Democrats hate blacks so much.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You may wish to reassess your conclusion. Since Blacks are also disproportionately VICTIMS of gun violence wouldn’t less gun violence be a positive? Anyway, how do you propose we get guns out of the hands of criminals?

      • formwiz says:

        Oh, sure, make it illegal. Confiscate all the guns. Then they won’t have any. Dat’s da ticket.

        Where do they get them now? Could it be the confiscatory rapacity of the Left will confine itself to law-abiding people?

        Could it be that the Lefties want blacks killing themselves so they can’t stop and think about how socialism has shafted them?

        Could it be that’s why the media pushes black violence – in music, TV, movies?

      • Kye says:

        We can get the guns out of the hands of criminals simply by executing anyone using a gun to commit a felony. Oh, I see. You’re a big man when it comes to murdering babies but suddenly anti death penalty when it would actually cut crime DRASTICALLY! And you know whats great about THAT gun law? It only effects actual CRIMINALS not law abiding citizens. Mic Drop!

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          I am against murdering babies, or anyone for that matter.

          Why would executing everyone committing a felony with a gun cut crime DRASTICALLY? We’re one of the few nations with a death penalty but we have one of the highest homicide rates of advanced nations.

          You Q kids sure like to pat yourselves on the back, don’t you? LOL.

          How will you assess whether someone is a loyal American or not before you deport them or lock them up?

          • formwiz says:

            You’d like to see white people washed away in the Brown Wave and you’re all for abortion, but you’re against murdering babies, or anyone for that matter.

            Tell me another one Hans Christian.

            Why would executing everyone committing a felony with a gun cut crime DRASTICALLY? We’re one of the few nations with a death penalty but we have one of the highest homicide rates of advanced nations.

            Who said DRASTICALLY?

            Execute a murderer and he’ll never kill again. And that’s what should be done with all the illegals who murder.

            Well, if the Democrats didn’t preside of such rotting cesspools of corruption and neglect, we’d be 4th from the bottom. Which brings us to the fact that having a death penal;ty and using it are two different things.

            God forbid the Demos execute a Democrat voter.

            How will you assess whether someone is a loyal American or not before you deport them or lock them up?

            By what they say and do?

      • Here’s something interesting: if Democrats, particularly the ones in NJ, weren’t so gung ho with their belief in smartguns, we’d probably have good ones by now. It would be a choice, and more homeowners would be willing to get one if the intention was defense only. But, because of the push by Democrats, few are willing to develop.

        • Professor Hale says:

          Few gun makers are willing to develop this because they already tried during the Clinton administration. The market place didn’t want them. They dramatically increased the price, and introduced an unnecessary point of failure that gun owners did not want. It’s like buying a fire extinguisher with a complicated child-proof lock on it and having a fire. It didn’t help that the leading proponent of them was notable retard Jocelyn Elders.

  7. Kye says:

    Watch Occasional-Cotex….the New Democrat-Communist! Listen to what she says.

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1104529642273234944

  8. JGlanton says:

    I started keeping a firearm by the bed when the Night Stalker was going around shooting people in their beds at night. Our area also was getting hit by hot burglaries as street gangs started working the suburbs. Then California made their safe storage law and I had to keep them locked in a safe where they would be useless for home protection, or be a lawbreaker and chance that a fireman, nosy neighbor, sitter, dogcatcher, gas guy, policeman would stumble upon a firearm in my house. So I switched to keeping other defensive objects nearby, and also had hard protection dogs at home that no burglar was getting past. But the firearms were rendered useless.

  9. StillAlive says:

    blah blah blah……thats my post for the day since your website eats any post when you forget to fill in the name and or mail.

  10. John says:

    The stupid here burns hot.
    The poster boy for the proposed law “accidentally” shot himself in the head (head, mind you, was he looking down the barrel for a bullet?), after going into friends’ dads’ room, opening a plastic case, unlocking and removing a trigger lock, loading the gun with a seperate magazine, and chambering a round.
    If he had shot someone else, this chain of volitional actions would support a charge enhancement of premeditation.

    But never mind that, guns are evil, unless the government has them, and never mind about the criminals, they don’t obey the laws anyway.
    Those evil, gun-loving conservatives are standing in the way of a Socialist new era, with rainbows and unicorns for everyone, and it totally will not end up like Venezuela, because thus time we will do it right. Trust us. /SARC

    John in Indy

  11. william chandler says:

    We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.
    Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.

    the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.

    Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller “decision” was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
    “[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] 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;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
    than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
    U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
    Res adjudicata – “the thing has already been decided.”
    The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO “Constitutional rights.” What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
    a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
    b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

    The intention of the Founders and Framers was to keep our God-given rights secure by REQUIRING those who seek office to take the oath as an immutable predicate to taking office, meaning it is binding on THEM – not on US.

    Of course, most of the power brokers wish to keep us ignorant of our Rights and our Power. If possible, i highly recommend Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man,” which should help to educate Americans and illustrate to them the difference between Natural Rights, and what the 14th (never properly ratified, btw) wishes to change that to: “privileges and immunities.”

    It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
    They are all “armed forces”.
    They all “bear arms”.
    They all carry guns.
    That is what they do.
    It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.

    Governments don’t have to document their “right” to bear arms, that is what governments ARE, they are naked force, George Washington said as much. Saying governments have a right to guns is like saying cars have a right to have wheels…

    “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals … it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government … it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” Ayn Rand

    • formwiz says:

      The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.

      Technically, they did. The people who wrote the Constitution did not want a standing army (the Indians made that an unworkable stand).

      If you want an Amendment to give you the right to carry a firearm for hunting, self-defense, try the 9th.

      Not picking a fight, just pointing out a little history.

  12. william chandler says:

    Get something straight …. my guns are already LOCKED inside my house . … if the government cannot keep them OUT of my house, and they can/will break my locks to get IN . … what stops them from breaking the locks on my guns?

Bad Behavior has blocked 6929 access attempts in the last 7 days.