It would take more digging than I want to do at the moment, but generally the state is only required to give you back your right to vote and run for office, but at that point you have to ask the BATF to reinstate your gun rights. The only time that they wouldn't is if a state puts weapons restrictions on the reinstatement of rights, which you probably had the paperwork and know whether they did or not. Even if the state does not give them back, you can apply to the feds to get them back as long as the state did not specifically continue to restrict your weapons rights.

And yes, there is still a MAJOR difference between revoking someone's rights and requiring a permit for everyone. Even if you don't see it or think it's trivial compared to the issues you've faced there is a major difference and requiring a permit makes it a privilege instead of a right regardless of other restrictions in place.

 

You keep repeating this, but you're still not refuting what I'm saying. The right to bear arms is not absolute... period, end of story. If they can tell you you need a permit or special license to have a GE mini-gun or a howitzer, they can tell you you need a permit for a handgun.

 

I have a similar situation with my rights taken from me. For 10 years i am not alowed to own or ever operate a fire arm. If cought I get jail time. I busted threw a guys driver side window and hit him in the face. he was fine but I got charged with assault and battery. Unfortunatly i couldnt fight it and instead of getting my licence suspended for a year i chose battery wich took away my gun rights. Now it isnt a loss for me because I dont own guns or ever plan to own any but since then I have been invited to go to shooting ranges and I can't go because of it.

 

Fintile, is that a California law or country wide law, get charged with battery and lose your gun rights?

 

A handgun is not some sort of unusual firearm. Obviously opinions on the matter differ, but in MY opinion unless a firearm is something unusual making someone have a permit to purchase or possess it is unconstitutional. I never said the right to bear arms is absolute, it isn't. None of our rights are absolute. However this NJ requirement to apply for a permit to possess any handgun has gone beyond what is reasonable. Over 1/3 of the firearms in the US are handguns of one type or another and they're the single most versatile self defense weapon ever created by man. Handguns should not be restricted any further than long guns, and I view requiring a permit for a handgun the same as I would view requiring one for a hunting rifle.

Should you need a permit to exercise free speech? How about to practice your chosen religion? That is NO LESS ridiculous than requiring one for owning a firearm, or specifically a pistol. It's just one of the current ways that the anti-gun crowd is chipping away at the rights of gun owners.

 

So YOU should determine what's reasonable in NJ, and not the people of the State of new Jersey? So a handgun is always reasonable? What about a .50 handgun with a 30 round magazine... still reasonable? What about a .50 sniper rifle? What about a fully auto .50 rifle? What about a full auto multi-barreled .50 rifle? What about a full auto multi-barreled 30mm? Who draws the line of "reasonableness"? You?



Ah, but you improperly exercising your religion isn't going to potentially kill me. You forgetting to clear your throat before exercising your free speech doesn't have the unfortunate consequence of possibly blowing my face off.

 

People organizing in numbers, speaking freely, and/or practicing religion "improperly" has killed far more people than anything else in the history of the world and it was killing people long before firearms were even invented.

It's my right to give my opinion on my interpretation of the US Constitution, and that the US Constitution has power over what they do in NJ. My opinion has no bearing on the outcome of this matter, as I'm not a resident of NJ. That doesn't mean I can't express my opinion, and I will continue to do so until they make me get a permit for that too. I hope the US Supreme Court gets a chance to hear the case, although those spineless SOB's rarely rule on anything controversial and when they do the scope of their ruling is intentionally narrow. Why does the NJ case even matter to me? because it sets precedence that could be followed around the country.

I stick with my opinion that by the mere fact that it's a handgun, and that handguns make up over a third of all firearms owned, the right to possess them should not be treated differently than other common firearms. Belt fed full auto 30mm multi-barreled chaingun illegal? So is the pistol version.

As a former owner of a .50 handgun I see no issue with them, even with 30 round magazines. 50 Caliber rifles? Never once used in a crime in the US. Sniper rifles? Those don't exist. A sniper is a person. You put a high performance rifle in the hands of your average person and they'll be no better off than with any typical hunting rifle, usually worse off due to weapon complexity. The rifle is a sniper's tool.

Other features? I am actually not opposed to making common sense laws restricting people from owning incredibly destructive military weapons. I would even budge on some of the other regulations if the anti-gun agenda was planning on stopping once things were at a reasonable level. The anti-gun campaigns have openly stated that their goal is total confiscation, and EVERY piece of legislation they back is working towards that goal.

In MY opinion, which for the time being I am still allowed to have, gun laws are already strict enough. None of the pending legislation has a chance of actually impacting crime levels, it's just working away at the fraying edges of gun ownership. If they went after weapons firing the single most deadly cartridge in the US the legislation would not pass, because it's the innocent seeming .22LR. Instead, they go after scary looking so-called "assault rifles" which have nothing special about them above any semi-automatic hunting rifle and which are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. That is not trying to protect anyone, just to further restrict gun ownership as a stepping stone on the road to confiscation.

Handguns? Yes they make up a large percentage of firearms used in crimes. They're convenient. That makes them good for most things, including committing crimes. They're also good for personal protection, while NO other type of weapon is outside of the home. Restricting possession of handguns is restricting people's right to self defense.

Everyone has their line in the sand. Mine is where it is. It doesn't mean anyone else drawing their line somewhere else has a less valid line. I look around and see people drawing their lines so far back from the front that it has made it necessary for people who care to do their part to hold their lines in the sand, because every inch of ground given up at this point is an inch we'll never get back. The government has drawn their line also. They want to control us, not the other way around. The foundations of the walls surrounding the nation's future subjects are already constructed, and every time one of our rights is further chipped away at the walls get a little higher. Soon we won't be able to see over them.

Warrantless surveillance? Well if it helps look for terrorists... Intercepting and archiving every email, phone call, and text message? Well, there's no need for concern if you're not doing anything wrong... Holding people without trial? Well, only if they might be terrorists... Torturing people? Well what's the big deal if torturing one person can yield information that saves lives...

 

Sorry, but speech and religion never killed anyone. That's like saying, "guns kill people".



I'm talking about legal issues, not opinions.



Once again, you miss the point. The specifics don't matter. What matters is that you're saying government has no authority to place limitations on your rights, but they already do.




Splitting hairs on technicalities will get you nowhere. A long range rifle with a large scope and a bi-pod has one use... Sniping. Whether your target is human, animal or paper, it's still sniping.



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." is a quote from Benjamin Franklin... not Jefferson.

 

So you rendered your own reason why gun control is a good thing pointless with that statement. People talking and having unusual ideas about religion have led to the largest atrocities in human history. Usually they don't, but if those people are practicing Islam and talking about flying planes into buildings a lot of people can die. None of those rights should be restricted based on what could possibly happen.


These legal issues ARE opinions, because they're not set in stone by the letter of the law.


I'm saying they shouldn't be able to push farther than they already have, and in some areas it would be better to push the restrictions back. I have made it plainly obvious that I don't feel the right to bear arms is absolute, but you have conveniently ignored that in making this statement.


No, you're wrong, or at least don't know the definition of sniper. Sniping is the act of shooting from a hidden position. Snipers are equipped, trained, and assigned to do this. If you take the sniper's rifle, and hand it to a soldier riding in a convoy and he uses it to make a head shot on a sniper 1000 meters away he's still not a sniper, not sniping, and not shooting an imaginary thing called a sniper rifle. He's a Dedicated Marksman. Some people (mostly the media) consider any rifle with a telescopic sight to be a sniper rifle. If so sniper rifles are the single most common firearm in the US.


You're right, just wrote down the wrong name accidentally. Fixed it in my original also. Still a great quote.

 

Again, speech and religion never killed anyone. The things people do in the name of their religion is not the religion. Being Catholic didn't make the Inquisition torture and kill people. Being sadist's made them torture people. They just used religion as justification.



You're either naive or just ignoring facts to make a point if you don't believe there are some weapons that are specifically designed to take out targets from distant concealed positions.