NationStates Jolt Archive

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_153111639.html

Dunno about you, but when I hear that an elderly convicted felon and his wife who seems to suffer from age-related demential have an arsenal of 500 guns and enough rounds that the National Guard had to come in to remove 'em, I have to ask: what for?

What do you mean?

Are you asking why they would have so many weapons (and so much ammunition), or are you asking why they had to be removed?

The former, Potaria. I know why they had to be removed. :)

Okay, just making sure. After being on various forums for the past two years, you have to get clarification.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.

Okay, just making sure. After being on various forums for the past two years, you have to get clarification.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.
Because you need them to hunt birds!

Because you need them to hunt birds!

Haha. I was in the local pawn shop a few years back, and this family of hicks came in to look at the guns. This girl, about 18, picked up an M4 assault rifle, and said "This'd be gewd fer shootin' ducks!".

They bought it. Oh, and they also bought a Benelli M5 shotgun. Reason? Deer hunting.

Personally, I just like guns.

Who cares? Maybe they liked guns. Maybe they didn't want to continually have to go to the shop to get new ammunition. I don't think this is the issue here.

Um, I think the fact that he's a convicted felon, and therefore unable to legally own ANY guns, and has no need for over 500 guns some of which are assault weapons is rather an important detail, don't you?

Um, I think the fact that he's a convicted felon, and therefore unable to legally own ANY guns, and has no need for over 500 guns some of which are assault weapons is rather an important detail, don't you?

I definitely do. I dunno about everyone else...!

No, Kat, that really isn't important. In the scale of criminals, he wasn't even high enough to be called a nobody. If he was the leader of a weapons smuggling ring, then maybe the detail would be important.

The fact that he was unable to legally own weapons is what's important. Why the fuck did he have ANY weapons?

I believe his neighbors might disagree, as the ammo was stored in such a way, according to the on-air report, that there was a real danger of it destroying his house and others near it should it have caught fire.

The fact that he was unable to legally own guns, and owned so many of them, kinda pistol-whips the concept of gun control in the face! That said, it still doesn't matter. The issue is criminals owning guns, not how many guns one criminal owned.

The fact that he was unable to legally own weapons is what's important. Why the fuck did he have ANY weapons?

Black market. Right now, I can get 3 AK-47s and enough armor-piercing ammo to make a series dent in the ranks of the LA Police Force for the same amount of money to buy a used car. Nukes smuggled into the US are, in some cities, cheaper than a new house. If anyone wanted to actually take out the US, they could hit every major city in the nation before the military could stop them and wouldn't need to carry anything across the border except cash. And if you think the government can do anything about it, consider that the US is known for having internet security that ranks one step above that of Antarctica. To a good hacker, logging on to NS is more difficult than hacking the Pentagon.

I believe his neighbors might disagree, as the ammo was stored in such a way, according to the on-air report, that there was a real danger of it destroying his house and others near it should it have caught fire.

Okay. So we add his name to a list of about 700,000 fireworks owners, only this time it was bullets. Whoopty-freaking-do.

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_153160726.html

The issue also is of how ungodly unsafe it is to store 800lbs of gunpowder and that many rounds in a residential neighborhood.

There are so many reasons he should not have had them it's not funny.

1) He's a felon.

2) The guns were UNSECURED.

3) The powder and ammo constituted a danger to the neighbors and a nursery.

4) His wife's mental capacity makes it a danger for her to be around them.


Given all of the above, I cannot believe people will still say it's not a big deal and it doesn't matter.

It's not a big deal and it doesn't matter because this is one incident, and I seriously doubt very many people fulfill all 4 of the conditions you listed - not least of which, the immense storage of ammo. Besides, even if it constituted a fire hazard, a fire didn't happen - and how many fires in the US are really caused because someone had 800 pounds worth of gunpowder?

Just putting it into perspective... this is a freak, not the rule, and if you try to say all or most or even a good amount of gun owners are like this guy, I'll SHOOT YOU! :fluffle:

Kat, I say it doesn't matter for a simple reason: He's not the first. He is far, far from the first to illegally own weapons in extremely dangerous quantities and get caught. What you have here is nothing more than a combination of four elements so common that they only make the news as a major story in small towns. The elements are really not worthy of a CBS story, let alone a major arguement about them.

You want to solve the problem? You have to deal with a black market in guns so massive that I've heard police joke that the Defense Department would save more money by buying from the criminals instead of corporations and only a world war would cause a shortage of ammo, idiotic treatment of guns that is such of a problem in the United States that they cause thousands of gun-related deaths a year, societal problem of people not bothering to check up on the elderly, and a societal problem with how easily convicts get guns. To be honest, it would be easier to build a nuclear bomb from two paper clips and a banana peel than to solve those problems.

What you're facing here is a combination of problems so massive that it would take the entire of the US military, plus a draft to get numbers up to a required amount, in order to deal with it just in the United States.

It's not a big deal and it doesn't matter because this is one incident, and I seriously doubt very many people fulfill all 4 of the conditions you listed - not least of which, the immense storage of ammo. Besides, even if it constituted a fire hazard, a fire didn't happen - and how many fires in the US are really caused because someone had 800 pounds worth of gunpowder?

Just putting it into perspective... this is a freak, not the rule, and if you try to say all or most or even a good amount of gun owners are like this guy, I'll SHOOT YOU! :fluffle:


True- this is an exception, not the rule. I have several guns and loads of ammo for each. As well as reloading equipment. All safely stored in fire proof safe, which is hidden. Nothing will be stolen or "cook-off" in a fire.

One thing OI found funny-the wife was spending a night in the hospital after they picked the guy up so she wouldnt be alone. Otherwise, it would have been fine to leave her with the 500 gun illegal abortion/illegal silencer felon.

Santa Barbara, I am surprised to see you putting words into my mouth. I'd have thought you'd know better.

I posted information about this particular case.
I asked what people think about this particular case.
You twist it through implication into 'it's an anti-gun ownership rant' and then issue a silly 'threat'.

Given the hostile responses I see in this thread, am I therefore to suppose that gun enthusiasts defend criminals and criminally irresponsible people's right to own guns whether that ownership constitutes a danger to their community? Or merely that two gun enthusiasts are attacking me for daring to discuss this story?

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstoriesny_story_153160726.html


Given all of the above, I cannot believe people will still say it's not a big deal and it doesn't matter.

While I understand your concern,this is a fairly rare occurence.

What concerns me more is the millions upon millions of elderly people driving cars. They need a cane, but we are to believe their legs are strong enough to work the brake pedal correctly. They fall asleep in a chair while talking but we are to trust that they still have reflexes necessary to respond to driving conditions. They have to run someone over before their ability to drive is questioned. I wonder how many are even fully aware they are driving the entire time they are behind the wheel.

So-yes. This is one extreme and dangerous event. I wouldnt want this old douche next door to me. But everytime you drive anywhere, you're chances of having one plow into you are too high.

Santa Barbara, I am surprised to see you putting words into my mouth. I'd have thought you'd know better.

I posted information about this particular case.
I asked what people think about this particular case.
You twist it through implication into 'it's an anti-gun ownership rant' and then issue a silly 'threat'.

Given the hostile responses I see in this thread, am I therefore to suppose that gun enthusiasts defend criminals and criminally irresponsible people's right to own guns whether that ownership constitutes a danger to their community? Or merely that two gun enthusiasts are attacking me for daring to discuss this story?

Calm yourself, I'm not "attacking" anybody, just putting things into perspective. And that 'threat' really couldn't have been any more obviously ironic humor...

I think this particular case is freaky.

What else is there? I've never been one to be fascinated with crime stories.

His "felonies"

Sherwin Raymond, a former physician and known gun enthusiast, has twice spent time in prison: in the early 1970s for performing illegal abortions and later that decade for selling silencer-equipped submachine guns.

The question here becomes is were they actual submachine guns that were full-auto, or just single shot clones? Same for the a.k. etc.. Given that they confiscated 500 lbs of black powder I would assume they were just enthusiasts and not up to anything dangerous.

I agree with Katganistan & the p person( sorry i couldn't remember your name.).Otherwise i'm a bit comfused so no comment otherwise.

His "felonies"



The question here becomes is were they actual submachine guns that were full-auto, or just single shot clones? Same for the a.k. etc.. Given that they confiscated 500 lbs of black powder I would assume they were just enthusiasts and not up to anything dangerous.


the silencer by itself is a federal crime. I have a friend that got five years for possession of that, amongst other things.

And that 'threat' really couldn't have been any more obviously ironic humor...

I know -- hence me putting it into quotations and not going all wrath-of-Mod. (Or, more accurately, me not poking another Mod and asking him or her to assess the threat...)

I'm just a little surprised that the idea of him having this stuff just stacked around and not secured properly on top of his legal problems, doesn't seem to constitute a problem for folks who I assume are responsible gun owners.

I'm just a little surprised that the idea of him having this stuff just stacked around and not secured properly on top of his legal problems, doesn't seem to constitute a problem for folks who I assume are responsible gun owners.

I'm not saying it isn't a problem. With gun use comes responsibility, I am as against irresponsible gun use as I am illegalized gun use.

The former, Potaria. I know why they had to be removed. :)

Really? Great. Explain to me.

I personally know a person who has a collection of 100+ firearms.

Given the hostile responses I see in this thread, am I therefore to suppose that gun enthusiasts defend criminals and criminally irresponsible people's right to own guns whether that ownership constitutes a danger to their community?

How is that person a criminal or a danger to the community? He has committed two non-violent, and in fact I would argue victimless crimes back in the 1970's. He has lived a peaceful life for longer than I have been in this world.

2) The guns were UNSECURED.

Define "unsecured". Is there a law requiring everybody keep their guns in extremely expensive safes? No. As far as I am concerned, if he kept his guns at home [probably in a separate room, LOL], and an actual act of burglary was required to steal them, there's nothing wrong with it.


3) The powder and ammo constituted a danger to the neighbors and a nursery.

According to whom? Who said it? Some fire department expert? Or a reporter?

I would further note that back when the law prohibiting felons from owning guns was last challenged in SCOTUS, SCOTUS ruled that it was only constitutional because a provision was left for restoring said felons' rights later. I wonder what they would have said now that the provision in question no longer exists.


So let me recap it for you, Katganistan:

Yes, it is not a big deal.

Yes, it doesn't matter.

The solution to this situation is to restore the suspect's Second Amendment rights fully and to indict Mr. Blagojevich for violation of civil rights under color of law. :)

Um, I think the fact that he's a convicted felon, and therefore unable to legally own ANY guns, and has no need for over 500 guns some of which are assault weapons is rather an important detail, don't you?


Assault weapon? What's an assault weapon?

I will remind you, Katganistan, that "assault weapon" is a cosmetic definition. It's a gun looking like a military weapon. I will also remind you that the Assault Weapons Ban is dead. For a reason.

And furthermore, I would note that need is subjective. He has no less of a need for his guns than you have a need for your bows - you told me at one point you are into bows so I am using that as an example.

Need is not a valid argument in this issue.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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." At first glance, this provision seems to guarantee all citizens the right to "keep and bear" the weapon of their choice. However, a careful look at the legal and historical background of the Second Amendment proves otherwise. Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a qualifying statement that limits the scope of the rest of the amendment. The Second Amendment contains an expression of the purpose of the right: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." The First Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such statement of purpose serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed. Although Pro-gun groups contend that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to protect the possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia, judicial precedents have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history of our nation, the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia."

3) The powder and ammo constituted a danger to the neighbors and a nursery.


How so? Gunpowder does not explode when ignited, unless confined like in a cartridge.

And 100,000 cartridges is not really all that much

4) His wife's mental capacity makes it a danger for her to be around them.

Like Charlton Heston and Ronald Reagan?


judicial precedents have proved that the courts feel otherwise.

Which is why in every Supreme Court Ruling that the Second Amendment is mentioned, it is mentioned as an individual right. I see.

How so? Gunpowder does not explode when ignited, unless confined like in a cartridge.

And 100,000 cartridges is not really all that much
1. That amount of gunpowder could create a fuel-air explosion, which would do tremendous damage.

2. 100,000 cartridges not secured in large fires safes is a whole lot of trouble.

But the story does seem to be pandering a little. The guy is clearly a gun lover who's old age and packratting instincts went way way off the deep end. I wonder if he and his wife were nearly shut-ins and instead of QVC it was magazines pimping gunshows and firearms.

1. For a FAE, they'd need to be suspended in the air first. I bet they were in kegs and such.

2. What kind of ammunition? You can buy 1,000 .22 catridges in a single box for about fifty bucks or less. How was it stored? In steel boxes? Spread out on the floor?

A few rifle rounds go through a large enough container of gunpowder and that exactly what will happen. It doesn't take much. If you want to prove this to yourself, get mom and dad's permission, then blow a handful of fine iron filings, flour, whatever through a decent flame.

The ammunition was likely as varied as the collection. And metal boxes aren't good enough. Not with that much lying around. If it was properly stored, he wouldn't have been cited for it.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.

*grin* I assume the choice of words is intentional ?
Supplying a militia can indeed be argued to be in the spirit of the second amendment to the US constitution.

Really? Great. Explain to me.

I personally know a person who has a collection of 100+ firearms.



How is that person a criminal or a danger to the community? He has committed two non-violent, and in fact I would argue victimless crimes back in the 1970's. He has lived a peaceful life for longer than I have been in this world.



Define "unsecured". Is there a law requiring everybody keep their guns in extremely expensive safes? No. As far as I am concerned, if he kept his guns at home [probably in a separate room, LOL], and an actual act of burglary was required to steal them, there's nothing wrong with it.



According to whom? Who said it? Some fire department expert? Or a reporter?

I would further note that back when the law prohibiting felons from owning guns was last challenged in SCOTUS, SCOTUS ruled that it was only constitutional because a provision was left for restoring said felons' rights later. I wonder what they would have said now that the provision in question no longer exists.


So let me recap it for you, Katganistan:

Yes, it is not a big deal.

Yes, it doesn't matter.

The solution to this situation is to restore the suspect's Second Amendment rights fully and to indict Mr. Blagojevich for violation of civil rights under color of law. :)
Allanea, if you are not going to read the articles do me a favor and don't post. He is a felon twice over, which smacks of his utter disrespect for the rule of law. The cops who returned his confused wife to the home saw guns stacked in the house all over, got a search warrant, and removed them. Does it say secured? NO. The national guard removed 100,000 rounds and 800lbs of black powder.

I really don't care what you think the law OUGHT to be, the fact is he violated the law, he was careless and irresponsible as other persons (including Santa Barbara) have agreed, and that his owning a single firearm, let alone 500 of them including some Class III weapons (unlicensed) is yet again, a felony.

Allanea, if you are not going to read the articles do me a favor and don't post.
The cops who returned his confused wife to the home saw guns stacked in the house all over, got a search warrant, and removed them. Does it say secured? NO. The national guard removed 100,000 rounds and 800lbs of black powder.[/quote]

We do not know. It does not say unsecured either. Given the fact you can "secure" a rifle to a rack by simply running a steel wire through the trigger guard or some other part of the firearms and attaching it to the rack or anything else on you want to attach it to. The fact that the National Guard was capable of removing them does not mean they are unsecured. Give me a pair of wire clippers and I'll remove you the contents of an IDF armory. We know nothing about the form or fashion in which the ammunition was stored, either.

He is a felon twice over, which smacks of his utter disrespect for the rule of law

As he has not committed a crime since 1970. That smacks of the fact he didn't disobey a single law since, and as far we know, reformed himself.

I really don't care what you think the law OUGHT to be,

No, I didn't say anything about what the law ought to be. Restoring a felon's Second Amendment rights is an option that already exists under the Gun Control Act on 1968. The fact that Congress allocates zero funds to it's enforcement doesn't mean the option doesn't legally exist. All I am saying is - enforce the bloody law



including some Class III weapons (unlicensed) is yet again, a felony.

Please, Katganistan. There is no implication in the article any Title II weapons were owned by this person [Title II is the appropriate name.] And you say I haven't read it.

I would also like to note that he has been never charged with actually illegally possessing the weapon - perhaps the police knows something the newspaper doesn't? [Like that his disability has been already lifted? ]

as other persons (including Santa Barbara) have argued

They may have argued. I didn't. I argue the complete reverse: That we lack informatoin to decide either way.

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_153111639.html

Dunno about you, but when I hear that an elderly convicted felon and his wife who seems to suffer from age-related demential have an arsenal of 500 guns and enough rounds that the National Guard had to come in to remove 'em, I have to ask: what for?

It's legal (within the limits of your local fire code) to have up to 20,000 rounds of any single cartridge caliber of ammunition in your home or on your property.

20,000 rounds of .22 LR rimfire ammunition fits on a bookshelf.

I have that much 22 ammunition at home, plus nearly that much in 223 Remington, and nearly that much in 45 ACP, plus a mix of several thousand rounds in other rifle calibers.

All perfectly legal.

I don't have 500 guns - I have less than 10. But I know many people who own hundreds of guns. It's not as though they're going to run outside with ALL their guns and use the ALL at once.

As long as you're not someone the police consider to be crazy (i.e., people with dementia), and you aren't a felon, and you aren't committing violence, there's no problem with keeping large numbers of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

They probably called the National Guard to get rid of the ammunition because most government officials are people who are afraid of what is essentially an inert material.

The NFPA did tests and showed that even if you're in a room that's on fire and a stack of ammunition is present, even if the rounds cook off, they NEVER move fast enough to cause any injury. They won't even penetrate clothing. It doesn't go off just because you pick up the box, and it doesn't go off if you drop the box.

<snip>But the story does seem to be pandering a little. The guy is clearly a gun lover who's old age and packratting instincts went way way off the deep end. I wonder if he and his wife were nearly shut-ins and instead of QVC it was magazines pimping gunshows and firearms. Not at all unlike finding 150 cats in a house....

#1. I agree with Katganistan on the (general) Illegality issue. BUT
#2. I agree with Allanea on the Civil Rights/non-violent crime issue (IMO ex-con "legal" access to weapons should be based upon propensity to violence. IMO a conviction for Felony Bookeeping should not preclude one's Right to weapons...)
#3. I agree with the police that, at this phase the weapons probably should be confiscated (sell them to me please...) - not because of quantity, "inherent danger" or storage issues (unless verified in violation of fire codes), but because of demonstrated age-related incompetence. Fire codes will generally prohibit the storage of black owder in excess of 50lbs without a License, but that in and of itself is insufficient cause to confiscate the guns & ammunition. (Coupled with being Old & demented however...)

The man wasn't demented, Syniks. His wife has Alzheimer's. So does Charlton Heston. He continues to own guns and so did Reagan. Somehow I am sure that Reagan's private arsenal was more intimidating that this fellow's. [Reagan owned a Gyrojet, for one, which, being a rocket launcher and included in the Gun Control Act as a Class III weapon is more illegal/regulated than whatever this fellow can muster].

But yes, Syniks and Whispering Legs are right

It's illegal for a previously convicted felon to possess firearms or ammunition. That's all the reason they need to take the weapons.

I would, however, say that felons are caught every day with weapons - it's just not usually reported, unless the DA gets something sensational like a large number of guns or a large amount of ammunition.

Other than fire code violations, owning a large amount of ammunition is only restricted to 20,000 rounds per cartridge caliber.

There is no restriction on the number of guns you can put on your property. You could own 10,000 guns, and it's not against the law.

500 guns? The most you can use at one time is 4 (two guns each for the husband and wife). From the looks of it, he wasn't a gun collector, more like a hoarder.

Other than fire code violations, owning a large amount of ammunition is only restricted to 20,000 rounds per cartridge caliber.

Not by Fed law it isn't. Some weird New Jersey law?

Further, it is possible the man's firearms rights were already restored - one of the people on the Remington Board of Directors is a convicted felon IIRc.

Not by Fed law it isn't. Some weird New Jersey law?

Further, it is possible the man's firearms rights were already restored - one of the people on the Remington Board of Directors is a convicted felon IIRc.

ATF rule - 20,000 rounds, unless you have a Federal license (you're probably a distributor or store). That's 20,000 rounds in each caliber.

Easy to go over 20,000 rounds with 22 LR.

Fire codes "usually" match this. The danger from ammunition is not the threat of flying projectiles (All studies confirm that ammunition cookoff is not a hazard), but the threat of fueling the fire with the burning propellant. Modern smokeless powder in loaded ammunition doesn't spontaneously ignite, and is far less of a hazard than the original black powder.

If you're reloading, smokeless powder you store is a fire hazard, but is not an explosion hazard if it is stored in a non-confining container. You can throw a match on a 25 pound pile of smokeless powder, and it will burn hot, but it will NEVER explode.

It's illegal for a previously convicted felon to possess firearms or ammunition. That's all the reason they need to take the weapons.
Yes and no. If they were "her" weapons, they had no leagal authority to take them except for her dementia. He was not allowed to purchase (or technically even touch) them, but until she was involuntairly committed she could own as many as she wanted.

Another farsical "loophole" inherent in the implimentation "gun controll" laws. It is not fair to prevent the family of felons from owning firearms (they aren't necessiarly criminals after all) but it gives the felon access to the weapons. That's why, IMO, the "felon" ppart of current ATF regs should be caviated to "Violent" felons - family members should either be running from them anyway, or be willing to give up weapons for "love"...

<snip> You can throw a match on a 25 pound pile of smokeless powder, and it will burn hot, but it will NEVER explode.
Yes and no. If it gets too big, any propellant can self-contain sufficiently to get a low-level explosion. If in a building, this can lead to an FAE effect, but usually doesn't.

That said, Lookee at this:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/SynikFlame2.jpg

That is a picture of about a HUNDRED pounds of smokeless propellant being burned. There wasn't enough mass to self-contain and it burned in about 45sec. That's me in the foreground - the picture was taken by my Lieutenant about (I'm guessing) at the 15 to 20 second mark because the flames were much higher/wider at one point (look to the immediate left of the burn). I was responsible for lighting the powder-train that led to the great-big-pile-o-powderbags. It was a might warm...

Okay, just making sure. After being on various forums for the past two years, you have to get clarification.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.

Because they want to...

It is their right to buy guns if they see fit to do so.

An American doesn't have to have a reason in order to be able to buy a weapon... you could put it on a desk, never load it, and stare at it all day if you wanted to.

You could bury it in your front yard...

You could take target practice on trees (assuming you lived in the woods)...

You could use it/them to hunt

Or keep them around for personal defense

Or for no reason at all

No justification required... what freedom is all about.

Okay, just making sure. After being on various forums for the past two years, you have to get clarification.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.

Because they want to...

It is their right to buy guns if they see fit to do so.

An American doesn't have to have a reason in order to be able to buy a weapon... you could put it on a desk, never load it, and stare at it all day if you wanted to.

You could bury it in your front yard...

You could take target practice on trees (assuming you lived in the woods)...

You could use it/them to hunt

Or keep them around for personal defense

Or for no reason at all

No explanation required... what freedom is all about.

Because they want to...

It is their right to buy guns if they see fit to do so.

...

You could bury it in your front yard...

Are ther any caveats about keeping guns in a safe place once you have purchased them?

Black market. Right now, I can get 3 AK-47s and enough armor-piercing ammo to make a series dent in the ranks of the LA Police Force for the same amount of money to buy a used car.

believable

Nukes smuggled into the US are, in some cities, cheaper than a new house.

ridiculous.

To a good hacker, logging on to NS is more difficult than hacking the Pentagon.

do it then

Are ther any caveats about keeping guns in a safe place once you have purchased them?
Only if you are a reasonably intelligent person. So far being Stupid isn't a crime.

Only if you are a reasonably intelligent person. So far being Stupid isn't a crime.

So, if I was an american citizen I could by a gun and then leave it lying on my outside windowsill adjoining the street?

Okay, just making sure. After being on various forums for the past two years, you have to get clarification.

I, too, would like to know why two people would have enough weapons and ammunition to supply a militia.
Why do people need a hummer? Why do people need a vacation home? People just want these things, and they are allowed to buy them.

Originally Posted by DemonLordEnigma
To a good hacker, logging on to NS is more difficult than hacking the Pentagon.

do it then


*logs on to NS*

The power!!! OMG

Are ther any caveats about keeping guns in a safe place once you have purchased them?

lol! i'm not sure.... i would imagine that if the gun had an unmarked grave, the chances that someone would find it or be injured by it (or injure someone else with it) would be remote.

hehe

So, if I was an american citizen I could by a gun and then leave it lying on my outside windowsill adjoining the street?

If you don't mind having your stuff stolen. If it gets used in a crime, you can be sued for negligence.

Yes and no. If it gets too big, any propellant can self-contain sufficiently to get a low-level explosion. If in a building, this can lead to an FAE effect, but usually doesn't.


I routinely get rid of smokeless powder that's a bit old (I like to use fresh material for reloads).

I've lit a five-lb canister, just by opening the screwtop and dropping in a lit match. It fountains out like a Roman candle, and makes a roaring sound, but it's fun to watch.

I also use IMR 7828 to help start fireplace logs. A small train of powder to a small pile (about a handful) and a couple of pieces of fatwood. Put the logs in the grate, and light the train.

In about one second, you have a fully lit fireplace, even if the logs were wet.

If you don't mind having your stuff stolen. If it gets used in a crime, you can be sued for negligence.
You can be sued, but, depending on your jurisdiction, you will probably not lose.

If someone steals my car (ie, an auto B&E/theft) and uses it to run down a schoolyard full of kids, I cannot be held liable because the individual using the car had to commit a criminal act to acquire it. Same goes for guns.

If, however, I left the gun on the OUTSIDE of the window sill (not secured in my residence - even if only by a pane of glass), or lying on the sidewalk, etc. THEN I could be liable for creating a "public nuscience"/negligence.

So, if I was an american citizen I could by a gun and then leave it lying on my outside windowsill adjoining the street?
It some parts of this country that's a specific crime. In other parts you could probably be charged with some generic crime like "endangering the public". My grandpa has unsecured guns in his house. They're just hanging on the wall. Nobody thinks anything of it.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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." At first glance, this provision seems to guarantee all citizens the right to "keep and bear" the weapon of their choice. However, a careful look at the legal and historical background of the Second Amendment proves otherwise. Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a qualifying statement that limits the scope of the rest of the amendment. The Second Amendment contains an expression of the purpose of the right: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." The First Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such statement of purpose serving to limit the scope of the rights guaranteed. Although Pro-gun groups contend that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to protect the possession of arms, even absent a connection with the militia, judicial precedents have proved that the courts feel otherwise. Throughout the history of our nation, the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia."

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.

Yes, yes, I know. Countless people wrote about it, many of them more intelligent then I am. But I just wanted to set a few things straight.

So, what is it all about? Is that ‘right’ thing limited to the National Guard? Or does it include Mr. Jones the grocery salesman?

Let’s look at the wording, first. What does it say?

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.

This is obviously divide into two logical parts.

The first part is “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. The second is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The two clauses are related logically in a structure common to 18th and 19th century document. In legal jargon, they are a ‘justificatory’ and an operative ‘clause’. So, in other words, the first half provides a reason to have the second. That is, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms [henceforth RKBA] shall not be infringed.’ BECAUSE ‘a well regulated militia’ is ‘necessary to the security of the free state’.

That means that that while the government is not allowed to infringe the RKBA, the RKBA is not limited to members of the militia - because the justification clause does not limit the operative clause.

And Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School thinks that way, too. (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm)

Consider that as a simple analogue:

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

What does it mean? It means you are going to stop infringing on the right to read and write, hoping that, as a result, some of them will be smart enough to vote for Bush. To the same tune, the Second Amednent means the government is going to stop infringing on your RKBA, hoping that, as a result, it will be possible to create a ‘well-regulated militia’.

It is perfectly clear, from the writing of the Founding Fathers that they intended ordinary people to be able to exercise the right to bear arms:

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[The Constitution preserves] [/I] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. [/I]

James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Paper

In 1982, the United States Senate started a sub-committee on the subject. They reached the same conclusion.

Bibliography


The CommonPlace Second Amenment (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm) by Eugene Volokh
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session February, 1982 (http://www.accuratepress.net/report.html)
The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? Robert Dowlut, Oklahoma Law Review (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowjud.html)




Recommended Reading
Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.