Do state requirements to register guns violate the 2nd amendment?

[Met Income]

Discuss!

[fisharmor]

infringe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe)

–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.


Technically, semantically, no.
In reality, registration always leads to confiscation.
So the track record screams YES.

[FSP-Rebel]

We don't have to register our guns in NH, nor do we have to give fingerprints or pass gun training classes. You can open carry for free and conceal carry for $10.

[sratiug]

Discuss!

Absolutely.

[Met Income]

Bearing arms has absolutely nothing to do with a well regulated militia nor with the security of the State.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

yes it does, but the constitution won't protect you from them enforcing their illegal laws

[Met Income]

Absolutely.

Explain.

[sratiug]

Explain.

Any requirement to register guns implies that you may not carry a gun if it is not registered. That is is a restriction on the right to carry a gun and is explicitly forbidden in the constitution.

[Met Income]

Any requirement to register guns implies that you may not carry a gun if it is not registered. That is is a restriction on the right to carry a gun and is explicitly forbidden in the constitution.

How does that tie in with a well regulated militia and the security of the state?

[FSP-Rebel]

yes it does, but the constitution won't protect you from them enforcing their illegal laws
Basically, the Constitution either authorized everything the government does or it was powerless to prevent abuses from happening. So by default, the Constitution is long gone.:(

[penguin]

yes it does, but the constitution won't protect you from them enforcing their illegal laws

Sadly that is exactly what it is in Assachusetts. :mad:

[pcosmar]

How does that tie in with a well regulated militia and the security of the state?

The "militia" IS the people with their own arms. "Well regulated" IS educated in the use of arms and the ready availability of ammo and eguiptment, and a local command structure.
The "security of the state" IS the free people protecting their home.

[pcosmar]

yes it does, but the constitution won't protect you from them enforcing their illegal laws

That would be the job of the Militia. The people bearing arms and willing to use them.

[Met Income]

The "militia" IS the people with their own arms. "Well regulated" IS educated in the use of arms and the ready availability of ammo and eguiptment, and a local command structure.
The "security of the state" IS the free people protecting their home.

Is restricting the ability of a mentally ill person to carry a firearm an infringement? Shouldn't that person have the right to join a militia? In your absolute world the govt can place no limitiations, or excuse me, infringements on the right to carry.

[Pericles]

Is restricting the ability of a mentally ill person to carry a firearm an infringement? Shouldn't that person have the right to join a militia? In your absolute world the govt can place no limitiations, or excuse me, infringements on the right to carry.

It would be irresponsible of me to provide a mentally ill person a firearm, and doubt a mentally ill would be able to build one himself.

[pcosmar]

Is restricting the ability of a mentally ill person to carry a firearm an infringement? Shouldn't that person have the right to join a militia? In your absolute world the govt can place no limitiations, or excuse me, infringements on the right to carry.

NO restrictions, NO limitations. NONE. It is none of their business and they are forbidden by the Constitution.
The care of the "mentally ill" would be local. family /community and it would be up to them what role they could have in defense.
Do the "mentally ill" have a right to self defense.

btw, I hate the term. It has been used often over the years to discriminate against any one the "state" thought was undesirable.

[ghengis86]

It would be irresponsible of me to provide a mentally ill person a firearm, and doubt a mentally ill would be able to build one himself.


NO restrictions, NO limitations. NONE. It is none of their business and they are forbidden by the Constitution.
The care of the "mentally ill" would be local. family /community and it would be up to them what role they could have in defense.
Do the "mentally ill" have a right to self defense.

btw, I hate the term. It has been used often over the years to discriminate against any one the "state" thought was undesirable.

well said. this leaves an individual responsible for his own actions. right now, it's "you passed your NCIS check, i have to give you this gun and since i have no culpability in selling you this gun, i don't care what happens."