Does this mean we win?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does this mean we win?

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:16:57 PM EDT

In reading the recently passed anti-lawsuit legislation, the following appears:

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty cut & dry definition of law. Does this mean the end of "gun-free" zones like DC & Chicago?I mean, its not gonna get much clearer than that.

Whats says you?

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:19:45 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
In reading the recently passed anti-lawsuit legislation, the following appears:

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty cut & dry definition of law. Does this mean the end of "gun-free" zones like DC & Chicago?I mean, its not gonna get much clearer than that.

Whats says you?

thats what you think, it should stand right there, but some lawmakers like to make shit up

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:19:52 PM EDT

[#2]

stepping stone.

Just need the lawsuits to enforce it.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:20:38 PM EDT

[#3]

What makes me sad it that it even had to be debated.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:21:54 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
What makes me sad it that it even had to be debated.

If it was any other law it was be read as if it was written in stone. I do not see how you can argue with that text.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:22:39 PM EDT

[#5]

I didn't know that that was in there.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:25:27 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I didn't know that that was in there.

In the back of some old, dark closet, Sara Brady is drunk and crying.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:25:58 PM EDT

[#7]

Libtards don't have that debate anymore but it won't stop them from banning. They'll just ignore that "shall not be infringed" part as they always have and notice how the media made no mention of this so 99% of the people out there don't even know of that part of the bill and I'd say a good deal of them didn't even pay attention to the bill in its entirety getting passed. The only thing I saw made headlines was the "child locks on pistols" which they seemed to act like it was a bill of itself in the media.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:27:33 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
In reading the recently passed anti-lawsuit legislation, the following appears:

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty cut & dry definition of law. Does this mean the end of "gun-free" zones like DC & Chicago?I mean, its not gonna get much clearer than that.

Whats says you?

I would like to think so.

Link?

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:32:20 PM EDT

[#9]

LINK:

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109u7wDaT:e558:

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:32:31 PM EDT

[#10]

Good news. Will make it harder for SCROTUS to rule the 2nd isn't an individual right.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:34:44 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

LINK:

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109u7wDaT:e558:

Thanks.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:36:03 PM EDT

[#12]

??? Are you sure about that link? I don't want to impugn sources but if that's in there I'm shocked. It's a double whammy and a real-deal victory for our side... Sounds too good to be true.

Sorry for the cynicism... but I don't know where to find the text of the actual bill to compare.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:41:35 PM EDT

[#13]

They are discussing this over at DU also.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x111302#111303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=111111&mesg_id=111111

Keep link cold.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:45:47 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
They are discussing this over at DU also.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x111302#111303

Keep link cold.

Looking though the thread, it would seem that "billbuckhead" is an imbecile. I mean...really. I read a few more coments by "billbuckhead" and the poor SOb is delusional.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:47:46 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
They are discussing this over at DU also.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x111302#111303

Keep link cold.

Looking though the thread, it would seem that "billbuckhead" is an imbecile. I mean...really. I read a few more coments by "billbuckhead" and the poor SOb is delusional.

Of course, that is DU. They are all imbeciles for the most part (except for the Arfcom troll accounts ;) )

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:53:03 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Libtards don't have that debate anymore but it won't stop them from banning. They'll just ignore that "shall not be infringed" part as they always have and notice how the media made no mention of this so 99% of the people out there don't even know of that part of the bill and I'd say a good deal of them didn't even pay attention to the bill in its entirety getting passed. The only thing I saw made headlines was the "child locks on pistols" which they seemed to act like it was a bill of itself in the media.

Good. If thats all they read, then they will claim victory and move on while we get what we want. The best fight to be in is that which never happens.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:55:07 PM EDT

[#17]

One of his quotes:

It's like these armsmongers get economic protection to destabilize society

Slow motion somewhat random terror across America brought to you by the Reichwing.

WOW.

Posted: 7/31/2005 7:57:35 PM EDT

[#18]

BTW, I've been out of the loop. Is this the same Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that was going on in spring of '04? Minus the AWB part of course. Congress passed it? Bush signed it? HELP!

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:05:58 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
In reading the recently passed anti-lawsuit legislation, the following appears:

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty cut & dry definition of law. Does this mean the end of "gun-free" zones like DC & Chicago?I mean, its not gonna get much clearer than that.

Whats says you?

Congress "finding" a fact doesn't give it any force of law, because Congress doesn't have a right to alter (or clarify for that matter) the Constitution of the US. So the wording in the law would have no effect on appeals to restrictive gun laws in the courts.

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:08:06 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Congress "finding" a fact doesn't give it any force of law, because Congress doesn't have a right to alter (or clarify for that matter) the Constitution of the US. So the wording in the law would have no effect on appeals to restrictive gun laws in the courts.

True. Additionally, this ain't law yet.

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:09:05 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
In reading the recently passed anti-lawsuit legislation, the following appears:

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty cut & dry definition of law. Does this mean the end of "gun-free" zones like DC & Chicago?I mean, its not gonna get much clearer than that.

Whats says you?

The Constituition has been around for how long and those idiots are just figuring it out! I wonder which god given right we'll get back next?

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:18:54 PM EDT

[#22]

It means that we won the last election, and we have a slight majority of senators that believe in the Second Ammendment as written. Nothing more.

It's a baby step in the right direction.

Don't get too exited until the SCOTUS makes the same finding. Even then, the battle will not be over.

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:22:44 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
BTW, I've been out of the loop. Is this the same Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that was going on in spring of '04? Minus the AWB part of course. Congress passed it? Bush signed it? HELP!

Brief history of PLCA:

Passed the House in '04. The AWB renewal got tacked on in the Senate, and the sponsors killed the resulting bill (final vote on the resulting bill was at least 80-something against). Reintroduced in this Senate session, and passed with only a worthless gun-lock rider. AFAIK, nothing special is going on with the House version this session.

Posted: 7/31/2005 8:27:05 PM EDT

[#24]

It wouldn't help places like Chicago, unless the State has a 2nd admendment like law.

Posted: 8/1/2005 1:19:51 AM EDT

[#25]

tag

Posted: 8/1/2005 1:39:11 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Libtards don't have that debate anymore but it won't stop them from banning. They'll just ignore that "shall not be infringed" part as they always have and notice how the media made no mention of this so 99% of the people out there don't even know of that part of the bill and I'd say a good deal of them didn't even pay attention to the bill in its entirety getting passed. The only thing I saw made headlines was the "child locks on pistols" which they seemed to act like it was a bill of itself in the media.

That is a good sign, the MSM all ways down plays things that could be bad for the left.