Printable View
Heller and McDonald were both STATE level limitations that were decided at the Federal SCOTUS level (in our favor too).
The Constitutional Law Attorney, Gura, that was involved in both cases seems to think the magazine limit would clearly be found unconstitutional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ0IX74oSuY
Moved.
Think outside the box.Quote:
I don't see any other choice than Congressional action to keep the states from further weaving the crazy quilt of gun laws.
Perhaps the correct number of coffins moved to the steps of the State Capitol (one for each legislator) with a Copy of the U.S. Constitution in each one would get the point across.
Every time someone posts something implying threats of violence we all get harmed. What does moving coffins to theQuote:
Originally Posted by HotGuns
steps of the Capitol imply? Nothing I want to be involved with and nothing I want to see happen.
Please, its nice to vent anger and all, but the whole world reads what gets posted on here, including those who want a total confiscatory ban. Let's not give them something to re-post on their web sites. O.K.?
^^^^^^^ Ixnaye on the alktay of offinscay^^^^^^^
Double naught spy alert!!!!
You libs are cetainly different when it comes to thinking.Quote:
What does moving coffins to the
steps of the Capitol imply? Nothing I want to be involved with and nothing I want to see happen.
No violent vibes intended. It simply implys that they are killing the U.S. Constitution by passing laws that are contrary to it.
.Quote:
Please, its nice to vent anger and all, but the whole world reads what gets posted on here, including those who want a total confiscatory ban
Yep. Do you really think that those that want a total confiscatory ban care what we think? I mean...really? Nothing we can say or do will change their way of thinking.
:rofl:
Coffins call for Taps. I thought this thread was about a fight. I want to here Reveille!
Ask and ye shall receive. Reveille at West Point - YouTubeQuote:
Originally Posted by Doghandler
Fight Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!
We already have a national gun law...it is called the 2nd amendment and it is the only national gun law we need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
People will eventually move from the States which suppress freedoms and will take up residence in the States which promote freedom and doesn't hinder a person's ability to protect and defend themselves and their family.
Lol, if you'll notice that one little thing in the preamble... Something about "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."Quote:
Originally Posted by BugDude
One of the main purposes of our Constitution is to secure Liberty for future generations... Including the freedom to drink as much fizzin' soda as you wish.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for this action to happen. I read the complaint and I like it. I wish them the best of luck. If there was something I could to help, I would be more than glad to do so. If someone here learns about a legal fund set up to take donations please post it here. I will give.
I think sodas and pretty much any other activity that can't be shown to harm anyone else should fall under the purview of the 9th Amendment, which is sadly a dead letter at this point. As far as the perceived need for gun laws...as far as I'm concerned the government got it right when it outlawed murder and theft. We don't need anything else. If we want the shootings to go down, we really need to look at getting rid of our drug war, since over 70% of the shootings are gang on gang, and they are likely getting in gunfights over drugs and other black market activities in the vast majority of these incidents. Remember that machine guns were placed under heavy regulation because of high profile incidents with them under Prohibition, that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. Instead of looking at a real solution that would also result in more freedom and less government waste, it is telling that instead we end up with things like the SAFE Act. I wish the plaintiffs in NYS the best of luck on this suit.
Clearly not. That's why you don't have nationwide recognition of your license; it is why the states vary wildly in what theyQuote:
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
allow and disallow. Now that 2A has been "incorporated" it means the states are bound by 2A's boundaries, whatever they are.
So far all we know about the boundaries of 2A as it applies to the states come from a handful of Supreme Court cases which have
effectively clarified NOTHING at all. No one knows what "reasonable regulation" (as used by Scalia ) means in a practical sense. A national 2A protection act could spell that out.
Meanwhile you can bet the courts will almost always define reasonable regulation as whatever a state legislature decided.
And some like IL, NJ, NY, Hawaii, Maryland and MA, are--or will-- go far past what folks who post here think is reasonable.
If Congress would take the bull by the horns they could define (instead of waiting for piecemeal rulings by various courts)
what the boundaries are for "reasonable regulation" and thus give the courts and everyone else guidance on this issue.
Like it or not, in our present world, "shall not infringe" is a phrase with no defined meaning. A national law defining
what constitutes infringement and what constitutes legitimate regulation would be a huge step in the right direction.
As always, there will be compromises some don't like, but we'd end up ahead of the game and do away with our
crazy quilt of 50 state laws that are so inconsistent with one another a license holder from PA can get arrested in neighboring
NJ and hung with a 7 year sentence for nothing more than possessing a single hollow point.
IF NRA and some of the other advocacy groups would get their heads out of the partisan arena and start thinking
about what is needed maybe we'd make some progress.
Hooraa! Give em hell. Take no prisoners.