Former gun store closes doors

Kary's Jewelry & Loan, a longtime pawnshop on Bailey Avenue, appears to be out of business.

[BABY]

I AM GLAD THEY CLOSED BECAUSE THAT WILL ELIMANATE SOME ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE STREET.

[buffalo man]

Baby, you are clueless

[too bad]

more guns = more dead monkeys. sigh. how do we get rid of them now?

[GunShowOnTheNet]

BABY wrote:

I AM GLAD THEY CLOSED BECAUSE THAT WILL ELIMANATE SOME ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE STREET.

What are you smoking? And, just what is an "illegal" gun? The ONLY one that I know of would be a gun that was STOLEN from its rightful owner.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

[Monty]

BABY wrote:

I AM GLAD THEY CLOSED BECAUSE THAT WILL ELIMANATE SOME ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE STREET.

How do you figure that?

[Monty]

too bad wrote:

more guns = more dead monkeys. sigh. how do we get rid of them now?

Do you mean the same way you got rid of any common sense you might have had???

[feedup]

BABY wrote:

I AM GLAD THEY CLOSED BECAUSE THAT WILL ELIMANATE SOME ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE STREET.

Please tell us what an illigal gun is.

[SC redneck]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you smoking? And, just what is an "illegal" gun? The ONLY one that I know of would be a gun that was STOLEN from its rightful owner.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

I lived in Buffalo and this place was under surveillance for yrs.. Stolen weapons,jewelery etc..not exactly on the up and up. Arrests were made a few yrs ago ,yet the pawn shop stayed open. I think some of the family members took it over if I recall right.Weapons are fine for law abiding citizens ,but the wrong people were given some illegally in this case.

[Truckin]

SC redneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I lived in Buffalo and this place was under surveillance for yrs.. Stolen weapons,jewelery etc..not exactly on the up and up. Arrests were made a few yrs ago ,yet the pawn shop stayed open. I think some of the family members took it over if I recall right.Weapons are fine for law abiding citizens ,but the wrong people were given some illegally in this case.

Hey, a fellow billy bob redneck!

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truckin wrote:

<quoted text>Hey, a fellow billy bob redneck!

And what do you know about that! It's a typing jack@ss that thinks it can drive a truck! Will wonders never cease?

[SC redneck]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
And what do you know about that! It's a typing jack@ss that thinks it can drive a truck! Will wonders never cease?

Did you get the gist of what I was saying? The guns were not illegal, but the people who owned this pawn shop sold them to unsavory individuals. The guns were legal, the people were not eligible to own them

[Your Name Here]

The guns being used to kill people around here are not being bought in legitimate gun stores. This may not have been a legitimate gun store but I don't think you will see the murders go away because it is closed.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

SC redneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you get the gist of what I was saying? The guns were not illegal, but the people who owned this pawn shop sold them to unsavory individuals. The guns were legal, the people were not eligible to own them

ALL Free people have the INALIENABLE Right to Keep and Bear Arms for their defense.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

[GunShowOnTheNet]

The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi...

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

“Afforded us by God & Nature”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGo...

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&Natu...

Life, Liberty and Property
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyP...

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/George...

"the overruling law of self preservation"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...

'for the common defence'(?)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRi...

"The Right to Self Defense"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.ht...

Precedent
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&am...

After The Fact
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Conte...

Amendment II and the Law
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.htm...

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:

The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamat...

The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat...

Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894...

Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1...

Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895...

Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895...

Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18...

Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896...

Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke...

Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS...

Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18...

Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896....

Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn...

BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited...

Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav...

Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop...

"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."

- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli...

"Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."

- Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008.
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...

[GunShowOnTheNet]

SC redneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you get the gist of what I was saying? The guns were not illegal, but the people who owned this pawn shop sold them to unsavory individuals. The guns were legal, the people were not eligible to own them

DO >YOU< GET THE GIST OF WHAT I AM SAYING?

[SC redneck]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
DO >YOU< GET THE GIST OF WHAT I AM SAYING?

Yes , I do. Closing a store that sells stolen weapons to felons and minors does not infringe on the second amendment ,however

[GunShowOnTheNet]

SC redneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes , I do. Closing a store that sells stolen weapons to felons and minors does not infringe on the second amendment ,however

You quite obviously DON'T understand TRUE Constitutional law....

[SC redneck]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
You quite obviously DON'T understand TRUE Constitutional law....

No I don't . I just know that this was NOT a gun store ,it was a pawn shop that was under investigating for a LONG time and even had some ties to OC. It should have been closed for numerous reasons, guns not withstanding