| Author |
Message |
    
P_squared
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 09:55 am: | 
|
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Like I said, between the non-judgement on the licensing requirement, and stating the 'in common use' part, where exactly are the grounds for H.R. 45 and/or the proposed 'assault weapons' ban? Only folks with a Class 3 license can purchase ACTUAL assault weapons. Those arms currently available for sale to John Doe, e.g. AR-15s, sure do look like they are in 'common use' at this time to me.
I think the court got it right. I'm not overly worried about them, at least not yet. It's the pols that scare the crap outta me, which is where this thread started.
Congrats on the new 870. I've always wanted 1, but haven't gotten around to it yet. To many other 'toys' taking up my time.  |
Trackdad
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:02 am: |
|
Well, with all this talk going on about weapons Carparts, his girlfriend and I will be out practicing this afternoon. Time to sharpen the eye! |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 10:57 am: |
|
"In DC, you could get a license. The problem was that they just didn't open the licensing office."
That is exactly why the law was struck down. I think they called it "capricious enforcement" in the long version of the decision. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 11:37 am: |
|
Under DC vs. Heller, I have grounds to sue the TDOT for "capricious enforcement".
The DMV folks can't find their butts with both hands in broad daylight.
Because the Government controls the licensing process, they determine the care with which the licenses are provided.
How do you prove "capricious"? What degree of "capricious" qualifies for a legally actionable? Is slow walk "capricious"? Who establishes the standard for "capricious"? |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 12:16 pm: |
|
How do you prove "capricious"? What degree of "capricious" qualifies for a legally actionable? Is slow walk "capricious"? Who establishes the standard for "capricious"?
You are missing the point of the decision. They just decided and defined what "capricious enforcement" meant when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
"Inept enforcement" is a different thing. That is such a hit-or-miss thing with government agencies.
I have been in and out of the Milwaukee VA for an injury I sustained in Iraq. They have been so efficient that it's amazing.
On the other side of it?
There are mistakes on my USMC DD214 that it apparently takes a super-majority of the US Congress to change. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 12:35 pm: |
|
You are missing the point of the decision. They just decided and defined what "capricious enforcement" meant when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
No, I got the point.
My point is this, the ruling from the SCOUS ruled singularly in the case of the Washington DC enforcement, but didn't provide much in the way of guidance for the applications of other states licensing policies. Each state is now able to create licensing requirements as determined by the state and residents of EACH state must bring suit with regard to the "capriciousness" of the enforcement in that state.
They killed one snake but did nothing to prevent another snake from appearing somewhere else.
"Capricious Enforcement" is a subjective determination. They set a standard that prohibited a subjective determination.
It's like passing a law that prohibits "ugly" people. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 01:45 pm: |
|
Both of us agree on this one when it comes to the "right to keep and bear arms." I just think the decision was a big positive that will influence laws throughout the United States in the direction of more freedom; and you see it as essentially neutral, or so limited in scope as to not have national impact.
Any time the Supreme Court rules to support our Constitution and affirm our rights, it's a good thing. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 01:53 pm: |
|
I would rather them to have taken an even stronger stance, but I will take what I can get.
The stronger stance would be to state than ANY state laws (except in those cases of mental infirmity or felony conviction) that require someone to "license" a weapon for ownership are unconstitutional. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 02:48 pm: |
|
I think the Constitution is clear that some regulation is permitted, and bordering on required. The way the amendment is phrased, it would be very hard to argue otherwise. Gun owners like you and I are lucky that the Supreme Court didn't concentrate on the first half of the amendment. It would have been a perfectly reasonable argument. Heller put that angle to rest, at least for now.
Bill |
Old_man
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 04:03 pm: |
|
A few years ago, one of the police officers from my department was arrrested in New York City for having his firearm while not on official duty.
Big time Bullshit. |
P_squared
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 04:22 pm: |
|
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I fully agree w/ you Old_man. 
BS to arrest an off-duty IMO.
Those are some of the 1st folks I want carrying 24/7. But that's just me & my opinion. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 04:32 pm: |
|
A federal law has rectified this.
A police officer is now permitted to carry anywhere in the U.S.A.
But, I bet, this is probably ignored in those cities with laws that forbid carry.
But, like I have said many times, "Laws do NOT keep CRIMINALS from carrying firearms.
It only prevents people who obey laws. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Its funny that the places in our country with the most restrictive gun laws are the places where you would want to be carrying. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 08:40 pm: |
|
M2me, Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with your cheerful optimism.
There are multiple groups who are dedicated to taking away your weapons. All of them. I suggest you read the manual available from Handgun Control Inc. now renamed the "Brady using a poor cripple for our advantage Violence has nothing to do with it" or something like that.
They know they can't do it today, all at once. They know it will take a gradual approach. They know that by telling you that they don't want to take away your "hunting" guns or guns with a "legitimate sporting purpose" that you will believe them.
You did didn't you? They knew you would. Sucker.
To understand what they really mean, you have to be a friendly spy. I wrote them that I was interested in helping out, & what were their plans for my donation? How were we going to rid the world of the scourge of evil guns?
They sent me a flyer & suggested their manual/book. I bought it. I gave it away, to another skeptic, and joined the NRA. Gave them money too.
The people who want to take away your gun are, for the most part, nice, honest people who are afraid of loud noises, and have been told that they will be murdered....often. ( by you )
The people who run these groups.... not nice. A less charitable guy than I would say they are totalitarian Communist/fascists types who have armed bodyguards and think you & most of the folk in their own groups are fools, ignorant & patsies. That's true, but if I said that, you'd think I was paranoid......... until you read their book, looked up the writers, ( wish I'd had Google then, it was not easy ) and read the stolen KGB files that show that the anti gun movement gets substantial aid from some very bad people.
Even if you assume that a foreign connection is pure conspiracy fantasy, I suggest you look at the roots of the anti gun movement in America. Racist, "progressive" and solidly Democrat party. I especially loved the speech about "let a Negro on a train with a gun and a bottle of whiskey...." Ah! the good old days before they pretended they liked minorities.
http://nra.org/
Nice guys but a little wishy washy for my taste. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 11:24 pm: |
|
So you found a bunch of nuts.
There are nuts at every side of an issue.
The vast majority of the people in this country are not nuts.
I don't worry.
Laws do NOT keep CRIMINALS from carrying firearms.
It only prevents people who obey laws. |
Bill0351
| | Posted on Thursday, March 05, 2009 - 11:47 pm: |
|
I suggest you look at the roots of the anti gun movement in America. Racist, "progressive" and solidly Democrat party. I especially loved the speech about "let a Negro on a train with a gun and a bottle of whiskey...." Ah! the good old days before they pretended they liked minorities.
I know it's just a Wikipedia cut and paste, but at the bottom I included a great summation of where the racist wing of the Democratic Party went. The old Southern Democrats are the new Southern Republicans.
The activist and uncompromising anti-gun movement identifies with the Democrats for the same reason Racist whites are drawn to Republicans. Both are the only mainstream party that they find even vaguely appealing.
It dosn't mean that the majority of Democrats want to take away your guns any more than the majority of Republicans want to reinstate Jim Crow.
"After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. At that point, most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into a more conservative organization."
|
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 12:15 am: |
|
The southern Democrats were Democrats only in name.
They couldn't be Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican.
They now are Republicans to represent their true beliefs.- right wingers. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 12:22 am: |
|
Well said Old Man.
Reagan made it acceptable for the conservative southerners to switch parties to Republican. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 12:24 am: |
|
As a police officer in the 60s & 70s, I was a target of the nuts of the time.
The time of the riots across the country(I was in the middle of that), Kent State and the National Guard, Anti-War, Anti-Government.
They wanted to disarm the police.
I was called a pig every day by some snot nosed ass.
OINK, OINK - as I walked by.
The anti-gun nuts were stronger then than they are now.
The media was even on their band-wagon.
But the vast majority of the people in this country are smarter than that.
I don't worry.
Smart people know that Laws do NOT keep CRIMINALS from carrying firearms.
It only prevents people who obey laws from having guns.
(Message edited by old_man on March 06, 2009) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2009 - 07:35 am: |
|
Old_man,
The nuts run the agenda, and it's supported by the party. It has been since the Civil War. KKK are cowards, and they hated getting shot at. ( I have no comment here about another thread related to that, I've not done any fact checking. The NRA was teaching marksmanship in southern Black Churches as the Klan burned crosses. )
Smart people know that Laws do NOT keep CRIMINALS from carrying firearms.
It only prevents people who obey laws from having guns.
Absolute truth. But I'd argue that the Gun control nuts are MORE powerful today. The Media is solidly on their side & lie a lot about guns. Though some lies you can chalk up as pure ignorance. Journalists today are morons.
Spatten1,
Nixon, not Regan led many Southern Christian Democrats over to the R. party. I'd make bets on which party leadership is more racist..... but how can you tell? It's not like they would be truthful if you asked. |
|
