2nd Ammendment

[Stubob]

After looking at many of the states gun laws this week, it would make a great talking point to pass one resolution across the nation that would allow only US Citizens to have the legal right to own guns. :?

Any legislation has to be done inacordence with what our forefathers wanted when they wrote the 2nd ammendment. History is full of civilations that when they give up the right to defend thier homes, they become subjects.

[Raccoon]

A decades old gun battle over the right to keep and bear arms in the nation's capital is brought before the District Court of Appeals.

What ends up happening, is the court gives an opinion about what the 2nd amendment right really means.

A 58 page opinion is rendered and broadens and defines the meaning of what the 2nd amendment's intent was. In a victory for gun owners, the court stated that the right to bear arms is not intended for a "well armed malitia" as a group, but was intended as an individual right. The case may be taken to the Supreme Court for final decision. This appears to overturn the law banning citizens from owning a gun in Washington D. C.

Some say this is a homerun for Gun enthusists everywhere.

Here is the link:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-09-2007/0004543337&EDATE=

What do you think?

[ccadmin]

Thanks for sharing, that is very good information on the DC opinion. Will this be enough for residents of DC to obtain the CCW rights any time soon? :?:

[VegasGeorge]

For those of you who like to read, you may see the complete, official copy of the Attorney General's Opinion, "WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT," August 24, 2004, at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm.

Right now it's the 5th one down on the list on that page. Just look for the title, and click on the PDF link.

[Bill of Rights]

Hi all,

From what I recall of Parker, it eliminates the ability of a governmental entity to completely prevent the ownership of firearms by the people, such as DC has done for 30 years, however it does nothing to touch the issue of carry, and it even provides for the ability of localities to restrict certain places as "gun free". (this is several-month-old memory from which I'm working here)

Granted, we've had restrictions like this all along, but to codify them into SCOTUS-level precedent may be exactly the chilling effect we do not want.

The ideal would be if SCOTUS was to say that the 2A is the pre-eminent law and in it's phrasing "...shall not be infringed", any and all firearm laws are null and void. I'd love to see this, personally, however I'm not holding my breath.

I would welcome discussion on this, to include opposing viewpoints.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I have been thinking about the 2nd Amendment issue for some time now. The more I think about it, the angrier and more frustrated I become.

How did we get into this situation where States are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution they will honor, and which they will reject? That, of course, is exactly what they are doing with the 2nd Amendment. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if various States decided that you had to have a permit to attend church, administered a test you had to pass to get the permit, charged money for it, specified the churches you were allowed to attend, and required that you renew your church attendance permit every so often? There would be an uprising and revolt. Yet, the sheeple have allowed themselves and their fellow citizens to be disarmed, and/or regulated with respect to arms, with hardly a bleat of protest. Sadly amazing!

[Bill of Rights]

Right as usual, George.

The reasoning we've been given (and to accept it, we have to disregard history), is that attending church never killed anyone, and thus, in the interest of public safety (the motto of the tyrant), and for the greater good of society (so say the socialists), we have to accept regulation of deadly weapons. (conveniently, however, not kitchen knives, cars, wine bottles, rocks, lead pipes, etc., etc.)

The problem has been identified as twofold: We as a society have two classes of slime, criminals and politicians, the latter being a subset of the former. So then, now that we have a problem identified, what shall we do for a solution? There are only so many candidates for public office. If, as some in the MSM have said, our race a year from now is Clinton vs. Giuliani, we have the choice of the lesser of evils, resulting, no matter how we vote, in evil.

Alternatively, if we have a choice of Richardson vs. either Thompson or Paul, we as a country cannot help but win. My guess is that it will be somewhere in the middle, and while I would love to see Ron Paul in the White House with a cooperative Congress, I think the more viable candidate is Fred Thompson.

It's easy to say we need to take our country back from the slimeball politicians, but making it happen, that's another issue entirely.

Any suggestions you or anyone has how to bring us back to the Constitutional Republic our Founders envisioned would be welcome.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Educate our children because they're not learning the constitution in school, and educate the sheeple. It's the key to saving the Republic.