Interesting article

[freyasman]

I came across this article about a court case that explores where the line is between "regulation" and "infringement" in regards to the 2nd Amendment. It's being referred to as "Heller II"; read more at the link http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/12/...m_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Newsletters

 

[trapdoor]

Probably the reason you've received no response to this is the source -- Guns and Ammo. Even though you and I know that the article is factually correct, any anti-gun folks here will simply say it's spin.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I still have all of my guns. How about you guys?

 

[freyasman]

Probably the reason you've received no response to this is the source -- Guns and Ammo. Even though you and I know that the article is factually correct, any anti-gun folks here will simply say it's spin.

Yeah, I believe your right about that. Still, I'm interested to see what the outcome will be in the "Heller II" case; might be able to get rid of some of the more stupid and aggravating laws around the country if it goes well.

 

[freyasman]

I still have all of my guns. How about you guys?

Any of them for sale? Whattya got?

 

[NightSwimmer]

No. I have nothing for sale.

I used to worry about this whole "they're coming to take your guns" meme back when I first encountered it in the 1960s. I've since discovered that there are far more pressing political issues and that this particular fear tactic really has no meat on its bones.

 

[freyasman]

No. I have nothing for sale.

I used to worry about this whole "they're coming to take your guns" meme back when I first encountered it in the 1960s. I've since discovered that there are far more pressing political issues and that this particular fear tactic really has no meat on its bones.

Did you read the article in the link? It's not really about that....

 

[trapdoor]

Did you read the article in the link? It's not really about that....

Of course he didn't.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I appreciate that this issue is very important to you guys.

I'm not worried about it.

 

[trapdoor]

I appreciate that this issue is very important to you guys.

I'm not worried about it.

The difference is, if we're left alone to do as we like (which is all we're really asking for) it has no impact on your life at all. If, however, would-be gun controllers have their way, it disrupts significant portions of our lives.

 

[NightSwimmer]

The difference is, if we're left alone to do as we like (which is all we're really asking for) it has no impact on your life at all. If, however, would-be gun controllers have their way, it disrupts significant portions of our lives.

Yeah. I know. As I said, I've been hearing this for the past 40 years or so.

I've also survived several major predictions of the End of Days over the past few decades. I don't lose any sleep over those predictions either.

 

[fairsheet]

In the past, I've expressed my opinion that the Supremes made the right Heller v. D.C. call. I don't say this because the 2nd has been clear on this question all along. In fact, it obviously wasn't. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 200+ years to resolve the issue. Nevertheless...it is the Supreme's job to resolve this sort of unresolved question. And as far as I'm concerned - for the sake of all - they made the right choice.

On of its pluses was how much wind it's taken out of the sails of the NRA-types who've made so much hay all this time, fear-mongering the the guvmint was gonna take away our rights (and guns).

It's important to note though, that the Heller v. D.C. decision didn't create nearly the kerfuffle it might have. Some of the more ardent advocates for the "colleective / militia" angle, were upset, but for the most part, the decision went down with remarkably little outcry.

One of the most significant reasons for that imho, was that the deciders (Scalia, et al) went out of their way to make the point the states retained the right to regulate as they see fit - they just can't issue blanket prohibitions. The NRA-sters appear to be playing with fire on this one, as millions upon millions of Americans might support their basic rights re guns, but they're not down with the idea of "un-regulation".

 

[trapdoor]

In the past, I've expressed my opinion that the Supremes made the right Heller v. D.C. call. I don't say this because the 2nd has been clear on this question all along. In fact, it obviously wasn't. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 200+ years to resolve the issue. Nevertheless...it is the Supreme's job to resolve this sort of unresolved question. And as far as I'm concerned - for the sake of all - they made the right choice.

On of its pluses was how much wind it's taken out of the sails of the NRA-types who've made so much hay all this time, fear-mongering the the guvmint was gonna take away our rights (and guns).

It's important to note though, that the Heller v. D.C. decision didn't create nearly the kerfuffle it might have. Some of the more ardent advocates for the "colleective / militia" angle, were upset, but for the most part, the decision went down with remarkably little outcry.

One of the most significant reasons for that imho, was that the deciders (Scalia, et al) went out of their way to make the point the states retained the right to regulate as they see fit - they just can't issue blanket prohibitions. The NRA-sters appear to be playing with fire on this one, as millions upon millions of Americans might support their basic rights re guns, but they're not down with the idea of "un-regulation".

Actually, the Heller decision left the states alone entirely. The McDonald decision applied the Heller decision to the states. A new case, Heller II, also brought against D.C. may knock down some of the very onerous licensing and registration requirements some jurisdictions have put in place to effectively stymie and citizens ability to use their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[fairsheet]

Actually, the Heller decision left the states alone entirely. The McDonald decision applied the Heller decision to the states. A new case, Heller II, also brought against D.C. may knock down some of the very onerous licensing and registration requirements some jurisdictions have put in place to effectively stymie and citizens ability to use their 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank you for signing on with your rote views on this matter.

 

[trapdoor]

Thank you for signing on with your rote views on this matter.

I didn't provide "rote views." I cited a couple of facts -- the Heller decision doesn't apply to states (it doesn't, it applied only to federal entities such as DC). The McDonald decision applies to states. There is a new case from the same plaintiff, Heller, working its way through the court system that challenges the licensing set-up in places like D.C. -- that case is expected to lay a brighter line on what sort of scheme amounts to an infringement of one's rights.

All of those are factual statements -- the only place you could possibly find fault with me saying that some jurisdictions attempt to use licensing, etc., to stymie one's 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[freyasman]

In the past, I've expressed my opinion that the Supremes made the right Heller v. D.C. call. I don't say this because the 2nd has been clear on this question all along. In fact, it obviously wasn't. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 200+ years to resolve the issue. Nevertheless...it is the Supreme's job to resolve this sort of unresolved question. And as far as I'm concerned - for the sake of all - they made the right choice.

On of its pluses was how much wind it's taken out of the sails of the NRA-types who've made so much hay all this time, fear-mongering the the guvmint was gonna take away our rights (and guns).

It's important to note though, that the Heller v. D.C. decision didn't create nearly the kerfuffle it might have. Some of the more ardent advocates for the "colleective / militia" angle, were upset, but for the most part, the decision went down with remarkably little outcry.

One of the most significant reasons for that imho, was that the deciders (Scalia, et al) went out of their way to make the point the states retained the right to regulate as they see fit - they just can't issue blanket prohibitions. The NRA-sters appear to be playing with fire on this one, as millions upon millions of Americans might support their basic rights re guns, but they're not down with the idea of "un-regulation".

DC really has made every possible effort to obstruct and discourage people from exercising their rights. It's bullshit and it needs to stop. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/
Read this series and take a look at all the hoops a person has to jump through; if that sort of thing was applied to any other civil right, the ACLU would be breaking out the torches and the pitchforks.

 

[fairsheet]

DC really has made every possible effort to obstruct and discourage people from exercising their rights. It's bullshit and it needs to stop. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/
Read this series and take a look at all the hoops a person has to jump through; if that sort of thing was applied to any other civil right, the ACLU would be breaking out the torches and the pitchforks.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just sayin'......it may not behoove you to push it too far. As a very simple and admittedly gun-illiterate example, let's consider the question of what size "magazines" should be legal. Some may insist that they should be limited to say....ten rounds. Others may insist that there should be no size limit. "The people" of any particular jurisdiction may prefer the latter. That's Democrat life. BUT....a relevant number of those people will wish to RETAIN the right to decide one way or another, and not have the courts take that right away from them.

 

[trapdoor]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just sayin'......it may not behoove you to push it too far. As a very simple and admittedly gun-illiterate example, let's consider the question of what size "magazines" should be legal. Some may insist that they should be limited to say....ten rounds. Others may insist that there should be no size limit. "The people" of any particular jurisdiction may prefer the latter. That's Democrat life. BUT....a relevant number of those people will wish to RETAIN the right to decide one way or another, and not have the courts take that right away from them.

Should individual jurisdiction have similar controls on other constitutional rights? If so, you're effectively throwing out the 13th Amendment entirely.

 

[freyasman]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just sayin'......it may not behoove you to push it too far. As a very simple and admittedly gun-illiterate example, let's consider the question of what size "magazines" should be legal. Some may insist that they should be limited to say....ten rounds. Others may insist that there should be no size limit. "The people" of any particular jurisdiction may prefer the latter. That's Democrat life. BUT....a relevant number of those people will wish to RETAIN the right to decide one way or another, and not have the courts take that right away from them.

Folks down in parts of the deep south wanted to retain the ability to limit and restrict the civil liberties of certain other folks; bullshit then, bullshit now...

 

[fairsheet]

Folks down in parts of the deep south wanted to retain the ability to limit and restrict the civil liberties of certain other folks; bullshit then, bullshit now...

As I say, I'm not motivated to disabuse you of your feelings on this one. I will say though, that we always run into a bit of a problem when we get to suggesting that any particular "right" is absolute. That problem is that all too often, we end up trying to argue that two contradictory "rights" are absolute.