◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

[HTML1]

The majority of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia believe that the United Staes Constitution is all the “paperwork” a citizen should need to keep and bear arms. Despite Playboy’s reticence and strategic danger, many of our readers consider Open Carry the best way to defend and extend Americans’ gun rights, both personally and politically. Some go further, arguing that citizens who’ve paid their debt to society (i.e., served their time in jail) should have their gun rights restored. So where do you draw the line? Is this [via sfgate.com] acceptable? “Alameda County’s agreement to allow gun sales at the county fairgrounds in Pleasanton, with firearms tethered to display tables, won a federal appeals court’s approval Friday, signaling an end to a 12-year lawsuit by gun-rights advocates.” Never surrender, baby steps or both?

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

12 COMMENTS

  1. File my stance under “Never surrender.”

    The Disarmament Lobby will not rest until having fake guns on key chains becomes a Federal offense . The goal of the Schumers and Feinsteins is to establish a disarmed state so through we’ll need a police background check just to buy a poster of a firearm. Despite logic , fact, and history being against them such people are committed to the path of citizen disarmament until judgement day , and we must match that resolve to retain recognition of the rights we have .

  2. Never surrender indeed… and remember, the libs have done everything by degrees. When you want real change, unless you’re holding all the cards that’s the way you’ve gotta go.

    A good first step over in the People’s Republic but I’ve got no use for the place; better to just abandon it and move everything decent over to Arizona – they’ve got great gun laws (some of the best in the country) and at least a decent business atmosphere. If folks wanna trade their liberty and decency for a nice oceanside view, well, let ’em have it.

  4. We are never more than a single generation from whatever tyranny is du jour. We have to be vigilant and thoughtful about our rights, or we will inevitably lose them.

  5. The NRA, GOA and the entire alphabet soup of “moderate” pro-gun groups can lobby and threaten until they’re hoarse, but Heller and McDonald came about through the application of legal force. The application of force is the only thing that has ever advanced any civil rights against a recalcitrant government. Nothing else has the same effect.

    In time, there will be a body of gun rights jurisprudence. It might be entirely favorable to gun rights, but I doubt it. The statists have been packing the courts for too many years to let that happen. So, we will need to call on the “extremists” again and again to continue the expansion of gun rights. Without them, gun rights will cease to exist.

    This country did not achieve indepedence because someone wrote a respectful letter to King George. The Founders were anything but moderates. They were extremists, but as we’ve seen throughout history, today’s extremist is tomorrow’s moderate — if they win.

  6. Look at this photo you posted and tell me who the extremists really are:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SWAT-courtesy-deadliestwarrior.wikia_.com_.jpg

    They subjugate, terrorize and kill peaceable citizens daily, denying them their God given rights and trampling the Constitution that they swore to uphold. As a red blooded American male it’s not extreme in the least to vigorously resist violent oppression. I will respond legally to legal requests. I will meet any type of forceful oppression with equal or greater force. If I won’t defend my own rights who will? I also donate regularly to legal efforts to regain court approved use of my rights, so I guess my answer is both.

  9. Unfortuanately, Nordyke, poised to become a landmark case in the Ninth Circuit defining the standard of review for gun laws and regulations, suddenly went bust after an extended oral argument before an en banc panel, leaving this critical issue undecided. Essentially, Alameda County, which twelve years ago banned the annual gun show on county property, conceded (at oral argument) that a gun show is an “event,” and that the (amended) ordinance in question did not ban gun shows at all as long as the guns shown were tethered. Suddenly the case was moot, and the origninal Court of Appeals decision (by Justice O’Scanlain, a friend of the 2A) was eviscerated.
    On the bright sie, there are three important cases pending in the Ninth, all of which had been stayed pending the Nordyke opinion. Peruta, out of the southern district, held that open loaded carry and concealed carry could be banned or severely regulated as long as there was an alternative method of exercising the right–specifically open unloaded carry. pen unloaded carry was outlawed January 1, 2012, so now there is no legal way to exercise the right to bear arms outside the home, as recognized by Heller (no matter how many courts have denied it) can only be exercised in California by concealed carry. This, and the other two cases which both challenge “may issue”, are poised to openthe door to “shall issue” for this state. Little steps beget big steps.

Comments are closed.