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.
"Nothing in our opinion should 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."
In other words, the reason those "longstanding prohibitions" are not being changed by the Court's ruling in this case, is because the Court is not addressing the issues here. Whether the Court will address them in a coming case, is a different question.
Quote:
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."
Note that the Court here, is very careful to NOT address the issue of "What part of the Constitution provides exceptions or conditions, on the 2nd amendment's ban on government infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms?". That's fortunate for the gun-rights-haters, since the answer is clearly "The Constitution contains no such exceptions or conditions on that ban against government infringement". The Justices here, are simply saying, "I see what you did there, long ago.", without commenting further, for now.
As before, whether the Justices will address this question later, will be determined in future case(s).
Sorry thqt is simply untrue. What has been decided is that you cannot ban handguns.
From the USSC Decision
There is nothing to keep the regulations from expanding the limits on automatic weapons to semi-automatic using the same argument.
And concealed carry...the only really useful form for most purposes...is clearly fair game.
I could care less what those elitist fools think
And It is not fair game, they are pushing us..and when we push back, I bet you they will think or say "why are you doing this? "what did we do"...they are playing a very dangerous game.
Thank you for posting the entire gun debate from one point of view, the history of all modern gun laws and the complete list of assassinations yet again.
I would guess that it refers to the OP reference to the draconian gun laws that Sacramento legislature have in mind. I too think they are draconian gun laws and unconstitutional on their face. I hope that clears up any misconception anyone has about my position in this particular thread.
I do have serious issues with the Jefferson Quote that is used so flippantly by so many. Here and on some of the more radical gun boards. But that is for another thread, which I'll start.
Back to the OP.
Yes! I find the proposed California legislature gun laws unjust, unnecessary and utterly useless.
Thank you for posting the entire gun debate from one point of view, the history of all modern gun laws and the complete list of assassinations yet again.
I would guess that it refers to the OP reference to the draconian gun laws that Sacramento legislature have in mind. I too think they are draconian gun laws and unconstitutional on their face. I hope that clears up any misconception anyone has about my position in this particular thread.
I do have serious issues with the Jefferson Quote that is used so flippantly by so many. Here and on some of the more radical gun boards. But that is for another thread, which I'll start.
Back to the OP.
Yes! I find the proposed California legislature gun laws unjust, unnecessary and utterly useless.
In other words, the reason those "longstanding prohibitions" are not being changed by the Court's ruling in this case, is because the Court is not addressing the issues here. Whether the Court will address them in a coming case, is a different question.
Boy you will even misread to avoid the obvious...
What part of ..."Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions" don't you understand?
"to cast doubt on" is past your language skills?
Quote:
Note that the Court here, is very careful to NOT address the issue of "What part of the Constitution provides exceptions or conditions, on the 2nd amendment's ban on government infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms?". That's fortunate for the gun-rights-haters, since the answer is clearly "The Constitution contains no such exceptions or conditions on that ban against government infringement". The Justices here, are simply saying, "I see what you did there, long ago.", without commenting further, for now.
As before, whether the Justices will address this question later, will be determined in future case(s).
Yes they did. They said it is obvious that...and hat is all they need.
You poor gunnies cannot seem to get over it. You won the battle and lost the war.
What part of ..."Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions" don't you understand?
"to cast doubt on" is past your language skills?
Yes they did. They said it is obvious that...and hat is all they need.
You poor gunnies cannot seem to get over it. You won the battle and lost the war.
We don't have to get over it, they are violating the Constitution. We are wining the battle, the gun culture is filled with millions of new member in the last 5 years, and millions of kids, teens, and young adults.. that being said if you guys want a war....if you want trouble, I can assure you, you will find more then you can possible comprehend.
We don't have to get over it, they are violating the Constitution. We are wining the battle, the gun culture is filled with millions of new member in the last 5 years, and millions of kids, teens, and young adults.. that being said if you guys want a war....if you want trouble, I can assure you, you will find more then you can possible comprehend.
Actually it is not. The number of guns continues to increase while the number of gun owners continues to decrease.
Who votes?
And actually watch the ":you" nonsense. I tend to be in favor of concealed carry and such.
I just think you need to be a real idiot to think the "man the barricade": stuff works. See Egypt.
You are aware the vast majority of the Armed Force would side with the American people and not the feds...right?
You really that slow?
You forgot Kent State?
IN general this is a police matter not the military. And the military follows there leadership pretty solidly. Particularly the elite troops. You and your neighors want to take on a Special Forces platoon?
Unless we are willing to put a total ban on firearms...including front line police...I favor citizen ownership of light arms always with concealed carry. And you can conceal carry everywhere.
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.
