Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9072 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
from the Supreme Court of the United States
TLDR

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9073 Oct 13, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>TLDR
You're leaking from both ends now, Squishy.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9074 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article.&#57376;VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9075 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Yes

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9076 Oct 13, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Article.&#57376;VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9077 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Article VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9079 Oct 13, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Article VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.(2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9080 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.(2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Not even topic of discussion...the posting was in reference to the comment that the Constitution was NOT the law of the land...The Constitution clearly states in Article VI, that it is.

Article VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9081 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
The right pre-existed the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The right does not depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal gov’t.

The right is recognized as an individual right belonging to the people unassociated with membership in a militia.

The right protects those arms associated with a militia and “in common use at the time”…and that could…“contribute to the common defense.”

U.S. Supreme Court; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

U.S. Supreme Court; UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

U.S. Supreme Court; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

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
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9082 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
and you are doing your own personal interpretations ... like I said... if you believe your interpretations, come down to california with your assault weapons, strap them on with all your (supposed permits) and your copy of the constitution and let's see how far you get...are you game mr. blowhard?
yeah...yeah.. I know.. let's hear the "control freak...blah..blah..blah" .....
These are NOT my interpretations...what do you think they are saying...?

U.S. Supreme Court; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

U.S. Supreme Court; UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

U.S. Supreme Court; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

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

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9084 Oct 13, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even topic of discussion..
I guess you give yourself the right to post and repost and repost the same irrelevant crap but think no one else can mock you for it, eh, MOOCH?

What you know about law and the US Constitution wouldn't get you to the winning bench in a Small Claims court.

Before you get to law school, you gots to finish your GED.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9085 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
doesn't matter what I think or you think...give us a demonstration....name a time and place in Los Angeles..and tell us what guns you are bringing....and bring your constitution and bill of rights (it will give you something to read in lock -up)
So you can't even answer the question...YOU can't think for yourself...lol...typical "frustrated control freak" BS!...thanks playing.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9086 Oct 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you give yourself the right to post and repost and repost the same irrelevant crap but think no one else can mock you for it, eh, MOOCH?
What you know about law and the US Constitution wouldn't get you to the winning bench in a Small Claims court.
Before you get to law school, you gots to finish your GED.
Yeah...I do...and if you want to post irrelevant BS like you normally do, go for it...but don't think you will stop me from posting the information that proves you and the poster wrong.

Now GFY along with your buddy satan...you two make a great team..."Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb"

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9087 Oct 14, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
bwhahahhaha..that's the best you got, dumb a$$....not willing to test your bill of rights here in California or New York?.....
as they haul your sphincter away, you can quote the constitution and bill of rights the entire way...mwahahhahahahahhaha...ch icken$-hit blow hard..
Well it's good that even a Satan worshiping POS like you knows that NY and CA are two of the most unconstitutional, welfare driven, illegal alien infested states in the union (not to mention that CA is broke and mooching from neighboring states). Normal sane Americans are hoping the rest of the country doesn't end up like those two states. LMAO!!! Great examples! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Tray

New Albany, MS

#9088 Oct 14, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
doesn't matter what I think or you think...give us a demonstration....name a time and place in Los Angeles..and tell us what guns you are bringing....and bring your constitution and bill of rights (it will give you something to read in lock -up)
Hell you can't even enforce the laws you have on the criminals already there much less anyone else. Hell at this point you don't even have room in your "lockup" to put anyone else. Ha ha ha. I was in L.A. a year ago with an AK and two high capacity pistols in my vehicle and yes they were loaded and I still have them and the cops never bothered me. Come to my state and speak against the Constitution and Bill of Rights and we call that treason and don't need lock up for dealing will treason.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9092 Oct 14, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
states make and enforce their own gun laws...you can quote and make personal interpretations of the constitution, bill of rights, supreme court rulings and your mama's teachings....you have your challenge to prove what you preach...bring all your assault weapons, loaded, and tell us where and when you will display them....I will call the LAPD and give them a heads up....put up or STFU...
Awe...poor "little johnny"...wah...wah...wah ...nobody wants to play the way I want them to play...

"states make and enforce their own gun laws"

Until McDonald vs Chicago

"put up or STFU..."

Wah...wah...wah...GFY if you don't like it...YOU can no more control my 1st Amendment rights than you can my 2nd Amendment rights.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9093 Oct 14, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
bwhahahahahhah.... old bull$=hit news... once we got a good liberal governor in place, he did the impossible..and this was last january...not to mention new gun control measures
January 24, 2013|By Anthony York and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times
SACRAMENTO — Seeking to reclaim the state's identity as an innovator and engine of growth, Gov. Jerry Brown declared in a sweeping State of the State address that "California did the impossible" in emerging from financial crisis poised to lead again.
Brown outlined a vision for the state Thursday in remarks that were equal parts history lesson, lecture and rhetorical flourish. It includes major investment in water and rail systems, more robust trade and an education structure free of regulations that crush creativity.
Dear Lord! You really are clueless, aren't you?

CA unemployment is 8.9%(significantly higher than national average).

In California, 3.8 percent of the population receives monthly welfare checks. In no other state is more than 3 percent of the population on the dole.

In California it is estimated that 6.8% of the population is illegal aliens and 9.7% of the work force is illegal aliens.

State taxes in California are among the highest in the country.

Considering the fact that the population in CA is 38,041,430 those percentages are significant, to say the least.

California is a model for the socialist agenda that taxes the productive to death in order to support the unproductive/illegal in comfort.

Did you get your check this month? Have you noticed that the government shutdown has only had an impact on people who have jobs? Those collecting welfare and other socialist assistance "benefits" are getting paid as usual while hard working government employees are suffering. A typical socialist success story. Ya gotta' love Obama.....

Try again dopy.........

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9094 Oct 14, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
constitution and bill of right are old history... save for your elementary school history class...
Can you say treason? Sedition? Communist insurgent? Idiot? Moron?

If the constitution and bill of rights are "old history" then so are individual freedom and America. You and those like you will be the death of this once great nation. Carry on comrade......

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9095 Oct 14, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Well it's good that even a Satan worshiping POS like you knows that NY and CA are two of the most unconstitutional, welfare driven
Right.

Unconstitutional states, eh, Squishy.

Wipe your chin.

Welfare states?

wipe...

1. New Mexico
2. Mississippi
3. Alaska
4. Louisiana
5. W. Virginia
6. N. Dakota
7. Alabama
8. S. Dakota
9. Virginia
10. Kentucky

PS: Alaska is number #1 recipient of federal benefits

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9096 Oct 14, 2013
Squach wrote:
CA unemployment is 8.9%(significantly higher than national average).
But not the highest, Squishy.

Wipe your chin, dear.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May 13 Belinda 1
US Secret Service Clothes (Sep '06) May 8 nikonnicky 28
News Russian hacker faces decades in prison Apr '17 USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr '17 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar '17 Dakoter 44
News Man who drove suspicious car near White House i... Mar '17 RustyS 1
News Secret Service laptop containing Trump Tower ev... Mar '17 Cordwainer Trout 7
More from around the web