Tennessee republican sheriff refuses to obey the law

[Anti Federalist]

Considering the Second, of which I participate in, wasn't intended to be a free for all as far as firearm ownership is, may I ask WHY you don't think those items should not be "regulated"?

LoL, just begging for more -rep around here.

Justify that statement, please.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what it means.

in·fringe 
 
[in-frinj]
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe[/URL]

You're pretty quick on the trigger. thanks!

 

[Captain America]

They are playing a game.

Please Appeal.

I lost the case.

law

Judges order

Courtroom audio

 

[AxisMundi]

When the government doesn't allow you to own a firearm that's an infringement of that right.

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

 

[AxisMundi]

LoL, just begging for more -rep around here.

Justify that statement, please.

I don't expect people to agree with me.

I'm not a media created sheeple.

Like you, I am here merely to state my opinion.

And NO right was meant to be "perfect". One cannot call for treasonious acts, papers may not transmit slander, etc.

The Second was not intended to bestow a Free For All weapon ownership on We the People.

 

[AxisMundi]

Sorry, I am an English-language hobbyist and tend to be pretty tied into word meanings without having to look them up. For the benefit of others I will actually post the definitions here:

So it would seem that "encroach" is listed as a direct synonym. That's really not new to me, to be honest, but I will say that the fact that the words are direct synonyms would seem to mean that your hair splitting here is a mite off-base, no?

As a language "hobbyist" then you should know that the meaing of a word needs to be taken in context.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

As a language "hobbyist" then you should know that the meaing of a word needs to be taken in context.

Synonyms in context yield the same meaning. Otherwise they would not be synonyms. There are occasions where certain constructs can yield different results when swapping synonyms out, but they are rare aberrations -- usually in the form of whole phrases that have become public memes.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't expect people to agree with me.

I'm not a media created sheeple.

Like you, I am here merely to state my opinion.

And NO right was meant to be "perfect". One cannot call for treasonious acts, papers may not transmit slander, etc.

The Second was not intended to bestow a Free For All weapon ownership on We the People.

Be my guest.

But you are incorrect.

The Anti Federalists were responsible for the Bill of Rights.

Tench Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian", said the following:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans

That means to me that the weapons "allowed" are all those that any soldier would be liable to have access to, including full auto rifles, grenades, rockets of various types and crew served weapons, to name just few.

I'd really only draw the line at NBC weapons, because, to my mind, they serve no truly defensive purpose, they are offensive, mass kill weapons.

 

[Matt Collins]

One cannot call for treasonious acts

Where is that prohibited?

And it also depends on how you define "treason".

 

[Matt Collins]

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

Yes, because if you can be denied that right without due process, then it isn't a right at all. Put another way, rights don't require permission!

 

[pcosmar]

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

I am disarmed by law.
I was arrested and convicted for a gun I did not own and had not committed any crime with, other that being in it's vicinity.
This was after a restoration of rights..

I AM INFRINGED.


this is the issue that got me "involved" in this movement.

 

[AxisMundi]

Synonyms in context yield the same meaning. Otherwise they would not be synonyms. There are occasions where certain constructs can yield different results when swapping synonyms out, but they are rare aberrations -- usually in the form of whole phrases that have become public memes.

The trouble is that people are attempting to apply modern language usage and concepts to a document centuries in age.

This leads to many basic misunderstandings, especially coupled with propaganda from modern agenda.

One must apply the language usage and concepts Of The Day to the document, and then apply those concepts to modern times.

The word "establishment" is a perfect example. Many believe this means only that our g'ment may not create a "state religion", yet definitional sources of the time show a quite different concept. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a definitional source much closer to the period of our Founding, lists "establish" as "To found, prove, confirm, or admit, as in Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So, as you can see, attempting to apply modern language usage simply fails.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The trouble is that people are attempting to apply modern language usage and concepts to a document centuries in age.

This leads to many basic misunderstandings, especially coupled with propaganda from modern agenda.

One must apply the language usage and concepts Of The Day to the document, and then apply those concepts to modern times.

The word "establishment" is a perfect example. Many believe this means only that our g'ment may not create a "state religion", yet definitional sources of the time show a quite different concept. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a definitional source much closer to the period of our Founding, lists "establish" as "To found, prove, confirm, or admit, as in Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So, as you can see, attempting to apply modern language usage simply fails.

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's.

 

[AxisMundi]

I am disarmed by law.
I was arrested and convicted for a gun I did not own and had not committed any crime with, other that being in it's vicinity.
This was after a restoration of rights..

I AM INFRINGED.


this is the issue that got me "involved" in this movement.

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's.

In fact, a closer look reveals that infringe was first related to the synonym "encroach" circa 1760, which places it well within the temporal context of the Constitutional convention.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infringe&searchmode=none

infringement 1590s, from infringe + -ment.infringe mid-15c., from L. infringere "to damage, break off," from in- "in" + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760.impinge 1530s, from L. impingere "drive into, strike against," from in- "in" + pangere "to fix, fasten" (see pact). Sense of "encroach, infringe" first recorded 1758.infraction mid-15c., from L. infractionem (nom. infractio) "a breaking," noun of action from pp. stem of infringere (see infringe).

 

[Anti Federalist]

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

"Licenses" and "registrations" for firearms are only required in a few, freedom infringed states, like NY, NJ and MA.

The vast majority of states, including Pete's, have no such requirement.

 

[pcosmar]

If the firearm had been registered and you were licensed, you would not have been arrested, correct?

Attempting to operate outside the law, unjust and/or unconstitutional laws or otherwise, is not the way to do things, at least if you expect not to be arrested.

First there is no registration on a Double Barrel 12 ga Field Gun. (Stoeger Uplander)
And how would I expect to be registered for something that has NO Registration.

Secondly, It was not my Gun. It was a Housewarming gift to my wife from a family member (a retired LEO).
It was hanging on a wall, and unloaded.

Why would I have reason to be concerned with being arrested.
I didn't. And was doing nothing to expect it.

This is what sent me on a search for my LOST RIGHTS.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Which is why it is de rigueur for people of my political stripe (Strict Constitutional Originalists) to lean on 1780's and 1790's dictionaries in order to capture the word meanings at the time they were actually authored. It is all a part of original intent - a key component of Constitutional Originalism. Fortunately, the definition of "infringe" has been substantively unchanged since the 1530's.

In fact, a closer look reveals that infringe was first related to the synonym "encroach" circa 1760, which places it well within the temporal context of the Constitutional convention.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infringe&searchmode=none

Pwnd.

LOL

So it's safe to say "infringed" means "infringed" and "shall not be" means "shall not be"?

 

[pmbug]

This probably won't get much attention because most care little about the NFA and the regulation of certain weapons. ...

Have you tried contacting the Second Amendment Foundation for legal help?

http://www.saf.org/

 

[osan]

Yes.

But that's not the current argument, now is it.

The argument is whether certain laws, suc as licensing and registration, eliminate the Second Amendment.

Eliminate? Where does that word come into the discussion? We're talking of infringement, which is not necessarily elimination, though it could be in the extreme case.