Definitely lesson learned and everything else you said.
Gripe over Gun Store Practices.
- Thread starter Panzerman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
You learned a lesson. BEFORE you step into a shop, you need to know what you want to buy. The way you did it, with your son picking out the item, and you filling out the paperwork and paying for it, gave them some concern, which is understandable. They will shut down ANY sales that they dont feel good about. They would rather lose a sale, then lose their license and thousands of sales.
The guy buying a gun as a gift for his wife was well within his right to do so. You making a scene over it was just a childish temper tantrum, IMHO.
Agreed. Also, the fact that you bought 10 guns in six months might not be working in your favor despite what you believe. You take a poll of the folks responding in this thread and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that 95% have not bought ten guns in six months.Gun stores near me in both PA and DE are hyper vigilant about straw purchases. The total profit they make off the sale of one questionable purchase isn't worth their livelihood. What doesn't the OP get about that? Perhaps he needs to not be so chatty and keep his mouth shut when enters a gun store. Maybe switch to decaf. If the OP thinks the gun store cares about his one man boycott, he's mistaken. Take it as a lesson learned. The gun store owner went by the book and the OP gave clear indication his purchase wasn't by the book. The old guys's purchase was none of the OP's business and an entirely independent transaction. Get over it OP.
You learned a lesson. BEFORE you step into a shop, you need to know what you want to buy. The way you did it, with your son picking out the item, and you filling out the paperwork and paying for it, gave them some concern, which is understandable. They will shut down ANY sales that they dont feel good about. They would rather lose a sale, then lose their license and thousands of sales.
The guy buying a gun as a gift for his wife was well within his right to do so. You making a scene over it was just a childish temper tantrum, IMHO.
Agreed. Also, the fact that you bought 10 guns in six months might not be working in your favor despite what you believe. You take a poll of the folks responding in this thread and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that 95% have not bought ten guns in six months.Gun stores near me in both PA and DE are hyper vigilant about straw purchases. The total profit they make off the sale of one questionable purchase isn't worth their livelihood. What doesn't the OP get about that? Perhaps he needs to not be so chatty and keep his mouth shut when enters a gun store. Maybe switch to decaf. If the OP thinks the gun store cares about his one man boycott, he's mistaken. Take it as a lesson learned. The gun store owner went by the book and the OP gave clear indication his purchase wasn't by the book. The old guys's purchase was none of the OP's business and an entirely independent transaction. Get over it OP.
The lesson that should be learned here is....... If you are going to buy a firearm, or a part for a firearm, do it yourself regardless of who you are buying it for. No matter if it's a "gift", or just for you, or whatever the circumstances that surround the purchase may be. Most dealers will react the same way if they sense anything involving a straw purchase. Or what they think is a straw purchase. Especially today. Involving more than a single person when buying a firearm invites problems. Even if they have nothing to do with the sale. Them being present is all that's needed to cause an issue.
I've bought guns for my wife. Most recently when she wanted a S&W Model 5946 like the one I just had purchased. I went back and bought it, and she stayed home. Out of sight equals out of mind. Yeah, you can argue it's a bit silly, and I'll agree with you. But that's the way it is. She has bought guns for me the same way. Once when she was at Cabela's she called me about a Beretta 92-FS that was on sale, along with a, "$50.00 Off" coupon she had. She asked if I wanted to drive down and look at it. (We live just 2 miles from Cabela's). The gun was a steal, so I told her to just go ahead and buy it..... ALONE. When you have husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, or in your case fathers and son's, (be they underage or not), it just complicates things, and winds up creating problems that otherwise would not have existed. As you found out.
The fact of the matter is, had your son simply printed out the part he needed, and you went in alone and bought it, none of this would have happened.
I've bought guns for my wife. Most recently when she wanted a S&W Model 5946 like the one I just had purchased. I went back and bought it, and she stayed home. Out of sight equals out of mind. Yeah, you can argue it's a bit silly, and I'll agree with you. But that's the way it is. She has bought guns for me the same way. Once when she was at Cabela's she called me about a Beretta 92-FS that was on sale, along with a, "$50.00 Off" coupon she had. She asked if I wanted to drive down and look at it. (We live just 2 miles from Cabela's). The gun was a steal, so I told her to just go ahead and buy it..... ALONE. When you have husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, or in your case fathers and son's, (be they underage or not), it just complicates things, and winds up creating problems that otherwise would not have existed. As you found out.
The fact of the matter is, had your son simply printed out the part he needed, and you went in alone and bought it, none of this would have happened.
Not an expert, but my understanding is that purchasing a handgun for your wife (or any non-prohibited third party) as a bona-fide gift is not a straw purchase, but purchasing for a prohibited person is, even if it is a gift. If your son is underage he is a prohibited person and you cannot purchase for him, but the other customer could purchase for his wife as a gift.
From Form 4473:
"Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."
Tom NJ
From Form 4473:
"Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."
Tom NJ
You are correct. However as is the case with most things legal, it is how the law is interpreted. And if the dealer senses anything "not quite right" in his mind, he is going to 86 the sale.
Originally Posted By: billt460
You are correct. However as is the case with most things legal, it is how the law is interpreted. And if the dealer senses anything "not quite right" in his mind, he is going to 86 the sale.
Agreed. If the gun store manager knew or suspected that the OP's son was underage, and saw the son involved in the purchase selection or decision, a prudent manager would pull the plug because he had "reason to believe" this was a straw purchase.
I don't think the OP's issue was with the decision on his purchase, but rather the apparent double standard in allowing the other customer to purchase for his wife. That purchase, however, was not a straw purchase if he was giving the gun to his wife without reimbursement (gift) and she was not prohibited. The store manager had no reason to believe that the wife was prohibited since she was not there, but perhaps did have reason to suspect the OP's son was underage. If so he was obligated to act.
Tom NJ
You are correct. However as is the case with most things legal, it is how the law is interpreted. And if the dealer senses anything "not quite right" in his mind, he is going to 86 the sale.
Agreed. If the gun store manager knew or suspected that the OP's son was underage, and saw the son involved in the purchase selection or decision, a prudent manager would pull the plug because he had "reason to believe" this was a straw purchase.
I don't think the OP's issue was with the decision on his purchase, but rather the apparent double standard in allowing the other customer to purchase for his wife. That purchase, however, was not a straw purchase if he was giving the gun to his wife without reimbursement (gift) and she was not prohibited. The store manager had no reason to believe that the wife was prohibited since she was not there, but perhaps did have reason to suspect the OP's son was underage. If so he was obligated to act.
Tom NJ
You are allowed to own a handgun at 18 in Florida but cannot buy one unless you are 21. My son was 20 which makes him legal to own a lower.
All these weird laws like you can't buy pistol ammo unless your 21 but can buy 9 mm because it's for a carbine if you state it's for a carbine.
I wish the Supreme Court would throw all these out because they are all " Infringements"
What part of Shall not be infringed don't they touch on?
All these weird laws like you can't buy pistol ammo unless your 21 but can buy 9 mm because it's for a carbine if you state it's for a carbine.
I wish the Supreme Court would throw all these out because they are all " Infringements"
What part of Shall not be infringed don't they touch on?
Your son was legal to "possess" a handgun, but not legal to "receive" one, which is what would have occurred if the store manager allowed you to buy it for him. Since the penalties for a straw purchase are very severe for both you and the gun store, most store managers will not take that risk for the small amount of profit they may make on the sale.
I agree the myriad of state and local laws are confusing and not fair. It would be great if the Supreme Court clarified a standard set of regulations applicable to all states, but that's not likely to happen as they look at such regulations as a state matter. So far they have only gotten as far as clarifying that we have an individual right to keep a loaded modern handgun in our homes for self defense (DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago), and that only in the past nine years.
Tom NJ
I agree the myriad of state and local laws are confusing and not fair. It would be great if the Supreme Court clarified a standard set of regulations applicable to all states, but that's not likely to happen as they look at such regulations as a state matter. So far they have only gotten as far as clarifying that we have an individual right to keep a loaded modern handgun in our homes for self defense (DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago), and that only in the past nine years.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Your son was legal to "possess" a handgun, but not legal to "receive" one, which is what would have occurred if the store manager allowed you to buy it for him. Since the penalties for a straw purchase are very severe for both you and the gun store, most store managers will not take that risk for the small amount of profit they may make on the sale.
I agree the myriad of state and local laws are confusing and not fair. It would be great if the Supreme Court clarified a standard set of regulations applicable to all states, but that's not likely to happen as they look at such regulations as a state matter. So far they have only gotten as far as clarifying that we have an individual right to keep a loaded modern handgun in our homes for self defense (DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago), and that only in the past nine years.
Tom NJ
Two sayings come to mind.
1. Be Careful What You Wish For.
2. I Am From the Government and I am Here to Help.
Your son was legal to "possess" a handgun, but not legal to "receive" one, which is what would have occurred if the store manager allowed you to buy it for him. Since the penalties for a straw purchase are very severe for both you and the gun store, most store managers will not take that risk for the small amount of profit they may make on the sale.
I agree the myriad of state and local laws are confusing and not fair. It would be great if the Supreme Court clarified a standard set of regulations applicable to all states, but that's not likely to happen as they look at such regulations as a state matter. So far they have only gotten as far as clarifying that we have an individual right to keep a loaded modern handgun in our homes for self defense (DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago), and that only in the past nine years.
Tom NJ
Two sayings come to mind.
1. Be Careful What You Wish For.
2. I Am From the Government and I am Here to Help.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Not an expert, but my understanding is that purchasing a handgun for your wife (or any non-prohibited third party) as a bona-fide gift is not a straw purchase, but purchasing for a prohibited person is, even if it is a gift. If your son is underage he is a prohibited person and you cannot purchase for him, but the other customer could purchase for his wife as a gift.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Your son was legal to "possess" a handgun, but not legal to "receive" one, which is what would have occurred if the store manager allowed you to buy it for him. Since the penalties for a straw purchase are very severe for both you and the gun store, most store managers will not take that risk for the small amount of profit they may make on the sale.
As has been said several times, his son can legally possess, and legally own pistols in Florida. They are not regulated, registered, or anything else. It is perfectly legal for an 18-20 year old to own a pistol in Florida. Per federal law, they cannot buy one at a licensed firearms dealer. However, they can receive the pistol as a gift from a friend or family member, or they could buy it private party from someone that is willing to sell it to them, which also by the way, is perfectly legal.
A straw purchase is providing a gun to a prohibited person, which his son doesn't appear to be based on his other firearm ownership. And his age alone, 18-20, does not fall under the prohibited person guidelines as it relates to a familial gift.
And this will blow some folks away- an 18 year old can even keep a fully loaded pistol in their glove box or center console, in Florida, all perfectly legal.
Not an expert, but my understanding is that purchasing a handgun for your wife (or any non-prohibited third party) as a bona-fide gift is not a straw purchase, but purchasing for a prohibited person is, even if it is a gift. If your son is underage he is a prohibited person and you cannot purchase for him, but the other customer could purchase for his wife as a gift.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Your son was legal to "possess" a handgun, but not legal to "receive" one, which is what would have occurred if the store manager allowed you to buy it for him. Since the penalties for a straw purchase are very severe for both you and the gun store, most store managers will not take that risk for the small amount of profit they may make on the sale.
As has been said several times, his son can legally possess, and legally own pistols in Florida. They are not regulated, registered, or anything else. It is perfectly legal for an 18-20 year old to own a pistol in Florida. Per federal law, they cannot buy one at a licensed firearms dealer. However, they can receive the pistol as a gift from a friend or family member, or they could buy it private party from someone that is willing to sell it to them, which also by the way, is perfectly legal.
A straw purchase is providing a gun to a prohibited person, which his son doesn't appear to be based on his other firearm ownership. And his age alone, 18-20, does not fall under the prohibited person guidelines as it relates to a familial gift.
And this will blow some folks away- an 18 year old can even keep a fully loaded pistol in their glove box or center console, in Florida, all perfectly legal.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
This part can be used to build a pistol or a rifle. The son is not of age to build a pistol according to the OP's description and the ATF regulations which the FFL is subject to. Regardless whether the assembled firearm is intended to be a rifle, it could equally be a pistol.
The son could build it into a pistol if he wanted to. And it would be perfectly legal for him to build it, posses it, and own it, in Florida. Per federal gun laws, he cant buy the lower himself, from a licensed gun dealer. But if he was gifted one(perfectly legal), or bought one himself in a private party transfer (perfectly legal), then he could build the AR pistol or rifle of his dreams.
This part can be used to build a pistol or a rifle. The son is not of age to build a pistol according to the OP's description and the ATF regulations which the FFL is subject to. Regardless whether the assembled firearm is intended to be a rifle, it could equally be a pistol.
The son could build it into a pistol if he wanted to. And it would be perfectly legal for him to build it, posses it, and own it, in Florida. Per federal gun laws, he cant buy the lower himself, from a licensed gun dealer. But if he was gifted one(perfectly legal), or bought one himself in a private party transfer (perfectly legal), then he could build the AR pistol or rifle of his dreams.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
However, if Bubba is Law Enforcement and familiar with the Federsl & State firearm laws in FL then I defer to his first hand experience.
All I would ask Bubba is if the FLL was also acting within his"Rights"?
Bubba was in law enforcement for 10 years. Took some time off when my son was born. Haven't gone back. Don't think I am going back. I am no longer a jack booted thug.
Yes when I left law enforcement I was an expert on Florida gun laws. All the other cops called me when they had questions. I did training sessions, and had them ask any questions. Do you know how many asked me about the three step law (no such thing) to concealing a gun in a car? Bang head.
To be fair, I haven't opened a statute book since I left, and I haven't been updated on any new law updates or case law since I left, but I am quite familiar with Florida gun laws.
One random case law I remember was, a gun cannot be considered a gun, or a deadly weapon, subject to arrest, if there is NO ammunition for that gun in the car. Case law has stated that a gun without ammunition is just an awkward shaped club, and should not be considered any deadlier than any other common tool or item that one would regularly find in a car, such as a tradesman's tools.
And yes the gun dealer was well within his rights to cancel any sale. Gun dealers should not be concerned with butt hurt customers that get denied sales. They should use their gut instincts, and if something doesn't feel right, then they should not allow the sale. That is what the ATF asks of them, and what all Americans should ask of them. A professional dealer, is just that, a professional, with a conscience, and a keen eye for suspicious behavior. If something doesn't feel right, bye.
However, if Bubba is Law Enforcement and familiar with the Federsl & State firearm laws in FL then I defer to his first hand experience.
All I would ask Bubba is if the FLL was also acting within his"Rights"?
Bubba was in law enforcement for 10 years. Took some time off when my son was born. Haven't gone back. Don't think I am going back. I am no longer a jack booted thug.
Yes when I left law enforcement I was an expert on Florida gun laws. All the other cops called me when they had questions. I did training sessions, and had them ask any questions. Do you know how many asked me about the three step law (no such thing) to concealing a gun in a car? Bang head.
To be fair, I haven't opened a statute book since I left, and I haven't been updated on any new law updates or case law since I left, but I am quite familiar with Florida gun laws.
One random case law I remember was, a gun cannot be considered a gun, or a deadly weapon, subject to arrest, if there is NO ammunition for that gun in the car. Case law has stated that a gun without ammunition is just an awkward shaped club, and should not be considered any deadlier than any other common tool or item that one would regularly find in a car, such as a tradesman's tools.
And yes the gun dealer was well within his rights to cancel any sale. Gun dealers should not be concerned with butt hurt customers that get denied sales. They should use their gut instincts, and if something doesn't feel right, then they should not allow the sale. That is what the ATF asks of them, and what all Americans should ask of them. A professional dealer, is just that, a professional, with a conscience, and a keen eye for suspicious behavior. If something doesn't feel right, bye.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
However, if Bubba is Law Enforcement and familiar with the Federsl & State firearm laws in FL then I defer to his first hand experience.
All I would ask Bubba is if the FLL was also acting within his"Rights"?
Bubba was in law enforcement for 10 years. Took some time off when my son was born. Haven't gone back. Don't think I am going back. I am no longer a jack booted thug.
Yes when I left law enforcement I was an expert on Florida gun laws. All the other cops called me when they had questions. I did training sessions, and had them ask any questions. Do you know how many asked me about the three step law (no such thing) to concealing a gun in a car? Bang head.
To be fair, I haven't opened a statute book since I left, and I haven't been updated on any new law updates or case law since I left, but I am quite familiar with Florida gun laws.
One random case law I remember was, a gun cannot be considered a gun, or a deadly weapon, subject to arrest, if there is NO ammunition for that gun in the car. Case law has stated that a gun without ammunition is just an awkward shaped club, and should not be considered any deadlier than any other common tool or item that one would regularly find in a car, such as a tradesman's tools.
And yes the gun dealer was well within his rights to cancel any sale. Gun dealers should not be concerned with butt hurt customers that get denied sales. They should use their gut instincts, and if something doesn't feel right, then they should not allow the sale. That is what the ATF asks of them, and what all Americans should ask of them. A professional dealer, is just that, a professional, with a conscience, and a keen eye for suspicious behavior. If something doesn't feel right, bye.
"Butt hurt customers. " Outstanding, Sir!
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
However, if Bubba is Law Enforcement and familiar with the Federsl & State firearm laws in FL then I defer to his first hand experience.
All I would ask Bubba is if the FLL was also acting within his"Rights"?
Bubba was in law enforcement for 10 years. Took some time off when my son was born. Haven't gone back. Don't think I am going back. I am no longer a jack booted thug.
Yes when I left law enforcement I was an expert on Florida gun laws. All the other cops called me when they had questions. I did training sessions, and had them ask any questions. Do you know how many asked me about the three step law (no such thing) to concealing a gun in a car? Bang head.
To be fair, I haven't opened a statute book since I left, and I haven't been updated on any new law updates or case law since I left, but I am quite familiar with Florida gun laws.
One random case law I remember was, a gun cannot be considered a gun, or a deadly weapon, subject to arrest, if there is NO ammunition for that gun in the car. Case law has stated that a gun without ammunition is just an awkward shaped club, and should not be considered any deadlier than any other common tool or item that one would regularly find in a car, such as a tradesman's tools.
And yes the gun dealer was well within his rights to cancel any sale. Gun dealers should not be concerned with butt hurt customers that get denied sales. They should use their gut instincts, and if something doesn't feel right, then they should not allow the sale. That is what the ATF asks of them, and what all Americans should ask of them. A professional dealer, is just that, a professional, with a conscience, and a keen eye for suspicious behavior. If something doesn't feel right, bye.
"Butt hurt customers. " Outstanding, Sir!
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
As has been said several times, his son can legally possess, and legally own pistols in Florida. They are not regulated, registered, or anything else. It is perfectly legal for an 18-20 year old to own a pistol in Florida. Per federal law, they cannot buy one at a licensed firearms dealer. However, they can receive the pistol as a gift from a friend or family member, or they could buy it private party from someone that is willing to sell it to them, which also by the way, is perfectly legal.
A straw purchase is providing a gun to a prohibited person, which his son doesn't appear to be based on his other firearm ownership. And his age alone, 18-20, does not fall under the prohibited person guidelines as it relates to a familial gift.
And this will blow some folks away- an 18 year old can even keep a fully loaded pistol in their glove box or center console, in Florida, all perfectly legal.
Thank you Bubba for the clarification and education! I have Virginia laws pretty much down pat but not Florida.
Tom NJ
As has been said several times, his son can legally possess, and legally own pistols in Florida. They are not regulated, registered, or anything else. It is perfectly legal for an 18-20 year old to own a pistol in Florida. Per federal law, they cannot buy one at a licensed firearms dealer. However, they can receive the pistol as a gift from a friend or family member, or they could buy it private party from someone that is willing to sell it to them, which also by the way, is perfectly legal.
A straw purchase is providing a gun to a prohibited person, which his son doesn't appear to be based on his other firearm ownership. And his age alone, 18-20, does not fall under the prohibited person guidelines as it relates to a familial gift.
And this will blow some folks away- an 18 year old can even keep a fully loaded pistol in their glove box or center console, in Florida, all perfectly legal.
Thank you Bubba for the clarification and education! I have Virginia laws pretty much down pat but not Florida.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
You are allowed to own a handgun at 18 in Florida but cannot buy one unless you are 21. My son was 20 which makes him legal to own a lower.
All these weird laws like you can't buy pistol ammo unless your 21 but can buy 9 mm because it's for a carbine if you state it's for a carbine.
I wish the Supreme Court would throw all these out because they are all " Infringements"
What part of Shall not be infringed don't they touch on?
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
You are allowed to own a handgun at 18 in Florida but cannot buy one unless you are 21. My son was 20 which makes him legal to own a lower.
All these weird laws like you can't buy pistol ammo unless your 21 but can buy 9 mm because it's for a carbine if you state it's for a carbine.
I wish the Supreme Court would throw all these out because they are all " Infringements"
What part of Shall not be infringed don't they touch on?
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
Personally, I'd just be happy to have gun stores that sell you anything with only an age mandate versus red tape. I won't be able to buy ammo at all without a permit come Summer of 2019 and if you only have a "legacy" weapon that's unregistered, I'm sure you'll now have to get it registered, pass a test, and be certified in order to buy ammo once that goes into effect.
If you read the writings of Madison ( who wrote the 2nd Amendment ), Tinch Coxe and others of the period it seems pretty clear to me they were referring to personal, private firearms. It's only in the 20th Century that the "well regulated militia" part has been used as some kind of indication that this term refers to only state militias or some form of state-sanctioned police or military force. That's been much more politicized than trying to acknowledge its true meaning. IMO, the Founding Fathers could have done us a favor to contextualize it more broadly versus using Colonial-era verbiage.
If you read the writings of Madison ( who wrote the 2nd Amendment ), Tinch Coxe and others of the period it seems pretty clear to me they were referring to personal, private firearms. It's only in the 20th Century that the "well regulated militia" part has been used as some kind of indication that this term refers to only state militias or some form of state-sanctioned police or military force. That's been much more politicized than trying to acknowledge its true meaning. IMO, the Founding Fathers could have done us a favor to contextualize it more broadly versus using Colonial-era verbiage.
What most people do not understand is the term, "Well Regulated", has nothing to do with regulation at all. The term actually refers to, WELL TRAINED.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
In DC vs Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that the "well regulated militia" clause was a prefatory clause that announced the purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, but did not limit the operative clause, which was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons.
From DC vs Heller:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists 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.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
Tom NJ
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
In DC vs Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that the "well regulated militia" clause was a prefatory clause that announced the purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, but did not limit the operative clause, which was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons.
From DC vs Heller:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists 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.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
Assuming you are an adult and not a 3rd grader, every history teacher that you have ever has has failed you. Seek a refund for any paid tuitions.
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
Assuming you are an adult and not a 3rd grader, every history teacher that you have ever has has failed you. Seek a refund for any paid tuitions.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
In DC vs Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that the "well regulated militia" clause was a prefatory clause that announced the purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, but did not limit the operative clause, which was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons.
From DC vs Heller:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists 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.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
Tom NJ
Good info, but that was a 5-4 decision along predictable lines. Change the composition of the court a bit and you have a different decision.
My basic point was that the preamble of the amendment is almost universally ignored and the founders did not include it just to waste ink...what they meant is endlessly debatable. This being a 5-4 decision tells me that the issue is hardly cut and dried. FWIW, I am not in favor of totally denying the individual right to bear arms.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
What about the well regulated militia part?
That was not included to be ignored as fluff.
In DC vs Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled that the "well regulated militia" clause was a prefatory clause that announced the purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, but did not limit the operative clause, which was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons.
From DC vs Heller:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists 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.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
Tom NJ
Good info, but that was a 5-4 decision along predictable lines. Change the composition of the court a bit and you have a different decision.
My basic point was that the preamble of the amendment is almost universally ignored and the founders did not include it just to waste ink...what they meant is endlessly debatable. This being a 5-4 decision tells me that the issue is hardly cut and dried. FWIW, I am not in favor of totally denying the individual right to bear arms.
- Status
Similar threads
