GOP Platform on Second Amendment and Gun Rights
With the Republican (GOP) Convention in full swing in Florida, readers have asked: “What is the official Republican Party position on the Second Amendment and gun rights?” Here is the section of the Republican Platform concerning gun issues, quoted word for word:
|
|
“We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill considered Clinton gun ban.” We think that language is pretty clear. Some gun rights advocacy groups will be satisfied with this Platform statement, others may believe the Republican Platform does not go far enough in calling for the elimination of existing Federal restrictions on firearms.
CLICK HERE to read complete 2012 Republican Platform (all issues).
Similar Posts:
- GOP 2016 Platform on Second Amendment and Gun Rights
- Election Watch: Obama's Position on Gun Regulation
- Second Amendment Foundation Launches New Website
- SAF Runs Special Gun Rights Feature in Washington Times
- Democrat Party Platform Includes Radical Anti-Firearms Policies
Tags: GOP, Platform, Republican, Second Amendment
“…We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law abiding citizen has a legal right to be..”
What does “has a legal right to be” mean?!
Is that ‘legal right’ controlled by government or the constitution?
Steve:
To me the key word is “wherever” – IMHO that means in your home, in your car, in public space that has no legal restriction on “civilian” physical presence. Does that mean you have the right to carry into a PTA meeting on a grade school campus? I would understand that if the local law says “no carry” on school property, then you do not have the right. However, if you are on your way to get a haircut on Main Street, in your car or on the sidewalk, yes, right to carry.
There are so many possible situational variations that I suspect it would come down to the nebulous “what a reasonable person would understand”.
I did not post to debate the matter, so please understand in advance that I may not respond in case you think otherwise.
What I do know is that between “second amendment rights” and “marriage between a man and a woman”, Obama MUST be defeated.
My personal problem is that I live in a “winner take all state” which disenfranchises its non-majority citizens every time they vote in a Presidential election. That said, for the first time in my 60+ years, I’m seriously considering putting money behind the candidate I pray will win.
God Bless the United States of America!
BTW, here is the GOP’s platform statement on “marriage” (which I TOTALLY accept).
“A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage
That is why Congressional Republicans took thelead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirm-ing the right of States and the federal government notto recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open de-fiance of this constitutional principle—in its handlingof immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits,in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base,and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Represen-tatives and State Attorneys General who have de-fended these laws when they have been attacked inthe courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitu-tional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in theirconstitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several otherStates to do so.”
VOTE!
Sorry, …(which I TOTALLY support)…
The Second Amendment exists Primarily to overthrow Government.
All other qualifications are secondary.
This crap about Legally allowed to be is a smokescreen and Romney’s statement Knows this.
They are couching their words believe them and you will pay the price as soon all government buildings will not allow you to carry.
OOOPs they do that now. OK all land is government land sorry turn in your guns.
They work for us, forget that and you wil lose.
We define Right and wrong not them.
First of the constitution doesnt say anything about over throwing the goverment that is in the Declaration of Independence and if you read it is clearly aimed at justifying why the country was rebelling against britain. Second the second amendment says the opposite that people should be allowed to have arms so they can defend the country, not overthrow it.