Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 12/10/2007 View Sun 12/09/2007 View Sat 12/08/2007 View Fri 12/07/2007 View Thu 12/06/2007 View Wed 12/05/2007 View Tue 12/04/2007
2007-12-10 Great White North
Cow manure and Shakedown posters: How to answer Jesse Jackson
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Icerigger 2007-12-10 15:08|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [259 views ]  Top

#1 I understand the Supreme court is currently working on the Constitution's ban on all gun laws, I'm looking forward to their realization that the constitution really does mean what it says, and ALL gun laws are abolished, I want to see Rev Jesse spin like a top as his bullshit is snatched away from him.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-12-10 16:17||   2007-12-10 16:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh, he won't stop. He'll find another way to cadge money.
Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford  2007-12-10 16:50||   2007-12-10 16:50|| Front Page Top

#3 Redneck Jim: There are three ways the case is being presented. As far as D.C. was concerned, the issue was:

"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes."

The SCOTUS finally decided that the case is about:

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This means that the SCOTUS took the more expansive view. However, this still leaves up in the air how they will address the issue:

1) Narrow. Only the D.C. laws are invalid. Other gun control regulations have to be challenged separately.

2) Medium. That typical local and State gun control laws cannot infringe on individual gun ownership in private homes only. Leaving open the right of local and state governments to restrict the carrying "bearing" of guns in public. Federal law being unaffected.

3) Expansive. Local, State and federal law must have provisions so that any citizen may own and carry firearms. This would most likely exclude weapons long excluded, like machine guns and explosives, defining "arms" as solely firearms.

Each of these three things can also be the result of the SCOTUS finding in favor of the D.C. laws. That is, it might apply to just D.C., or across the country to several degrees.
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-12-10 18:39||   2007-12-10 18:39|| Front Page Top

23:05 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:35 MarkZ
22:28 PBMcL
22:24 Throger Thains8048
22:14 Barbara Skolaut
22:02 Chuck Simmins
21:57 OldSpook
21:56 Barbara Skolaut
21:49 doc
21:35 www
21:33 gorb
21:09 Frank G
21:03 Pappy
21:02 KBK
20:56 KBK
20:53 Alaska Paul
20:51 KBK
20:48 Eric Jablow
20:46 Pappy
20:42 Phinater Thraviger
20:35 ed
20:33 Skunky Angeack7024
20:31 Eric Jablow
20:22 lotp

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.


Search WWW Search