Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Merry Christmas, a new lower is on my list. N-o-t-h-i-n-g you can do about it.
You are very way out of bounds, as usual. Leave law abiding citizens to our own business.
I've got a couple of lowers that have been sitting at my FFL for 6 months, I should go pick them up. I also want to order one of the Spikes "snowflake" lowers...just because it makes me laugh. Spec Ops had a special going on assembled uppers minus rail/guard for $130 , was planning on ordering a few. I might stray from 5.56 though and maybe try 7.62x39 or .308, this stuff is just fun to build up.
We will continue to have more stringent gun laws in some states and not so much in others, I don't see this changing.
I don't either, but it is still unconstitutional as firearms are one of the few things the Feds should have sole control, as it is something the states agreed to by agreeing to be part of the Union, and upholding the Constitution.
Let us recall that the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not precedent. Yes, by denying the petition the decision being appealed is left intact (for that particular circuit), but that it all it does.
The Court simply cannot grant all such petitions (perhaps 80 per year, out of 1000s). Perhaps the Court felt that the issues presented were not yet ripe for consideration. Generally, the Court will grant a writ if the various Court of Appeals are in disagreement.
As for the poster that mentioned that the several States cannot place limitations on the First Amendment regarding speech: they can, and do. We do not have Federal laws concerning libel and slander (speech) for instance, but I believe all 50 states do. Only when the states step over the 'line' in restricting speech will the Court hear the case. I direct you to New York Times v. Sullivan, as one example.
Let us recall that the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not precedent. Yes, by denying the petition the decision being appealed is left intact (for that particular circuit), but that it all it does.
The Court simply cannot grant all such petitions (perhaps 80 per year, out of 1000s). Perhaps the Court felt that the issues presented were not yet ripe for consideration. Generally, the Court will grant a writ if the various Court of Appeals are in disagreement.
As for the poster that mentioned that the several States cannot place limitations on the First Amendment regarding speech: they can, and do. We do not have Federal laws concerning libel and slander (speech) for instance, but I believe all 50 states do. Only when the states step over the 'line' in restricting speech will the Court hear the case. I direct you to New York Times v. Sullivan, as one example.
I know they have their limits but surprised that they didn't take this on with Thomas and Gorsuch on the court. I think the court would rather avoid these cases on gun control because its such a mess. I think they need 4 justices to hear a case.
I know they have their limits but surprised that they didn't take this on with Thomas and Gorsuch on the court. I think the court would rather avoid these cases on gun control because its such a mess. I think they need 4 justices to hear a case.
You are correct about 4 Justices need to vote to grant the writ. It is a shame that the Court does not indicate whom (if any) voted 'aye' to grant the writ.
Part of it may be, off the top of my head, that the Court recognized that in 1994 Congress and the presiding President (Clinton) passed into law the federal 'assault weapons' ban, and it was not found to be unconstitutional (whether the Court heard such a case, I do not recall). The law had a 10-year sunset provision.
If the state in question closely followed the old law, the Court members may have thought "Well, it was legal back then, so legal now".
However, it is just an opinion. We cannot know the reason.
Some people have them. You have to go through a background check, pay for the tax stamp, and apply for your Class III license, then pay the $50K or more for the gun.
Yes, its fine with me. Break the law with it, and go to jail for a loooooooong time.
Not sure how well that sits with the innocent people in the plane that gets shot down, but hey..., as long as the person that shoots down the plane goes to prison, we're okay with it. Is that how the logic goes?
Let us recall that the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not precedent. Yes, by denying the petition the decision being appealed is left intact (for that particular circuit), but that it all it does.
The Court simply cannot grant all such petitions (perhaps 80 per year, out of 1000s). Perhaps the Court felt that the issues presented were not yet ripe for consideration. Generally, the Court will grant a writ if the various Court of Appeals are in disagreement.
As for the poster that mentioned that the several States cannot place limitations on the First Amendment regarding speech: they can, and do. We do not have Federal laws concerning libel and slander (speech) for instance, but I believe all 50 states do. Only when the states step over the 'line' in restricting speech will the Court hear the case. I direct you to New York Times v. Sullivan, as one example.
True this...
States can enact their own laws as long as they are not in contradiction with the Constitution. Sometimes that line is not so easily recognized, but that's exactly where state rights and the 2A can sometimes be at odds. Some can't seem to understand that simple dynamic, but of course the SCOTUS does. The SCOTUS understands when they must decide accordingly.
This recent bill the GOP is now pushing for example...
"The NRA urged its members to call their representatives in support of the legislation. “Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!” the group, which says it represents 5 million gun rights advocates, wrote on its website."
Personally, I've been to Times Square a few times and always enjoyed the experience. I have never done so with the thought of guns or view of guns, and I suspect I am like most tourists who have enjoyed the likes, free of guns in the picture. Is it the right of someone else to walk around with a gun in plain site despite all the folks that would rather not see the likes? Does keeping the gun out of view in any way infringe on gun rights?
That's where the "shades of gray" and cooler heads also must meet, despite the meatheads who will go on forever about the "big black scary gun" as if the issue is simply about who's afraid of a gun and/or who is the big brave macho man. Simple is right...
States can enact their own laws as long as they are not in contradiction with the Constitution. Sometimes that line is not so easily recognized, but that's exactly where state rights and the 2A can sometimes be at odds. Some can't seem to understand that simple dynamic, but of course the SCOTUS does. The SCOTUS understands when they must decide accordingly.
This recent bill the GOP is now pushing for example...
"The NRA urged its members to call their representatives in support of the legislation. “Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!” the group, which says it represents 5 million gun rights advocates, wrote on its website."
Personally, I've been to Times Square a few times and always enjoyed the experience. I have never done so with the thought of guns or view of guns, and I suspect I am like most tourists who have enjoyed the likes, free of guns in the picture. Is it the right of someone else to walk around with a gun in plane site despite all the folks that would rather not see the likes? Does keeping the gun out of view in any way infringe on gun rights?
That's where the "shades of gray" and cooler heads also must meet, despite the meatheads who will go on forever about the "big black scary gun" as if the issue is simply about who's afraid of a gun and/or who is the big brave macho man. Simple is right...
The National concealed carry reciprocity bill you're talking about... means concealed.
My CCW is recognized to PA. If I travel to VT or Maine where my CCW is recognized, I can carry concealed on my person all the way to PA. If caught crossing NY with a pistol in my waist band I am subject to felony charges.
But not in Vermont or Maine. What is legal in 1 state, protected via the United States Constitution should be recognized in all 50 states and US territory.
So much for rambling on about open carry...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
