No More Angel Shamaya's - Second Amendment

DTop

DTop

Active member
I thought this was an interesting article. What are your thoughts on the article and the constitutional analysis of Dr. Viera?​
March 13, 2006
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Last week, Angel Shamaya, founder and former Director of Keep and Bear Arms was arrested; he is out on bail. Angel was charged with four misdemeanor counts of possessing firearms not properly registered in the State of Michigan. While Angel is out on bail, I say enough is enough. Angel was not in violation of the law, the State of Michigan is by not being in compliance with the Second Amendment. Angel is required under the Second Amendment to own and possess fire arms as so succinctly explained by Dr. Edwin Vieira in his columns. How many more of our fellow Americans will we allow to be rounded up and jailed for being in compliance with the written law of the land? [/FONT]​
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]For those who have missed the brilliant constitutional analysis on the Second Amendment by Dr. Edwin Vieira, here are a few critical points: Second Amendment as ratified: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Read the entire article.
 
Last edited:
Well, here is part 2 of the article.

Part 2

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]While our magnificent Minutemen have been pilloried and vilified by the ignorant, they are actually in compliance with the Second Amendment. Currently, they are the "unorganized" militia, but they are still doing their constitutional duty to "repel an invasion." They should be armed as part of the organized state militias under the state regardless of what miscreants like Chuckie Schumer or nitwit Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi puke out of their ignorant mouths. [/FONT]​
Click to expand...
 
Viera says that he is required under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms...This isnt so. The Second Amendment says that in order to maintain a well-organized militia, citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I think that to say that he is required is a false interpretation of this particular amendment. as for the rest of the article, i feel that with the proper background checks, why shouldnt we be able to keep guns? as long as they trust us the buy the weapons, whats the point of registering them?


BTW Marinerhodes, the article says four misdemeanor charges of possessing firearms without proper registrating papers.
 
So his firearms weren't properly registered. Seems to me someone has it in for the guy. Unless they asked him to comply with the state law and he refused.

I do not find it unreasonable to require a person to register their firearms. This is not restricting them from owning or having firearms. I would find it unreasonable if they have confiscated his weapons.

Here are some of the laws for Michigan in regards to firearms:

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns
  • Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
  • Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
  • Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
  • Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.
Handguns
  • Permit to purchase handgun? Yes.
  • Registration of handguns? Yes. Permits limited to persons over 21 with firearm ID card.
  • Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
  • Permit to carry handguns? Yes.
Other Requirements
  • Is there a State waiting period? No.
  • Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? Yes on long guns. Handguns are checked through a state system.
  • Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes.
  • Record of sale: Yes.
*NICS - National Instant Check System Caution: This summary is meant for general purposes only. Firearm laws frequently change.

Not sure what firearms he was in trouble over but it seems likely that it would be handguns if it is in regards to registration. Seems to me the reverse should be used in regards to handguns and long guns.

I would have to argue with them over this one. Seems to me they are infringing on the right to bear arms. What if I was your average citizen, 18+ years old (considered an adult), no criminal record etc. and was refused a permit to carry a handgun?



http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gunlaw_mi.htm
 
Last edited:
If there is a law that you have to register guns you buy at gun shows or from your neighbor, I've never seen it. A dealer at a gun show has to have you fill out the form and makes a call to check on you, but not the collectors or shooters you buy from. The democratic party has tried to kill gun shows for years but as long as people can read, the second amendment, they will never be successful. They have resorted to the "frog boiling" method of disarming America one liberal State at a time. Politicians love unarmed peasants.
 
Last edited:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmmm, just a thought, aren't all the laws, regulations and restrictions in point of fact infringements on this right??
 
bulldogg said:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmmm, just a thought, aren't all the laws, regulations and restrictions in point of fact infringements on this right??
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
bulldogg said:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmmm, just a thought, aren't all the laws, regulations and restrictions in point of fact infringements on this right??
Click to expand...

The Left is hoping you don't notice that because the only response they have is the meaning of a well regulated militia. I think cities can have an ordinance against how you can bear your arms within the city limits but I don't think a case has made it to the Supremem Court.
 
I grew up in NYC and I can tell you for a fact that when Guiliani (a Republican) passed the law the banned all guns within city limits, violent crime dropped radically (and still remains so). I have yet to see an example of bringing firearms into a major city is a good idea, usually its a very bad idea. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment but there should be certain 'common sense' restriction. Like not bringing your gun into a bar.

Laws that restrict firearms is nothing new. In the old west the were town laws (Dodge City for example) that ordered that all guns be checked into the sheriffs office. And yet at that time nobody seemed to have a problem with it except for outlaws.

Anybody remember Clint Eastwoods 'Unforgiven', where 'Little Bill' would arrest or Beat up anybody that didnt turn over their guns? That really did happen.
 
Last edited:
It does not matter what you or I or anyone else thinks is a good idea.

The fact of the matter is that the constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land.

No law can contradict the constitution.

The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Laws that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms are an infringement upon this right.

If you do not agree with this the only way to legally change it is by passing a constitutional amendment countermanding the second amendment.

Full stop.
 
bulldogg said:
It does not matter what you or I or anyone else thinks is a good idea.

The fact of the matter is that the constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land.

No law can contradict the constitution.

The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Laws that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms are an infringement upon this right.

If you do not agree with this the only way to legally change it is by passing a constitutional amendment countermanding the second amendment.

Full stop.
Click to expand...

And that pretty much sums it up in a little nutshell.
 
It does not matter what you or I or anyone else thinks is a good idea.

The fact of the matter is that the constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land.

No law can contradict the constitution.

The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Laws that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms are an infringement upon this right.

If you do not agree with this the only way to legally change it is by passing a constitutional amendment countermanding the second amendment.

Full stop.
Click to expand...

Common man, there has to be some reason to it though.

I think there is a fine line between self defense and over kill.

Nobody in the USA needs an RPG for personal defense.

I'm against most gun-control but there has to be limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top