Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/20/2006 7:07:08 AM EDT
Please excuse me for asking what I'm sure has been debated to death, but I'd really like to know why, with all of the times the Supreme Court has made noises about the rights protected by the Second Amendment being individual tights, about the only time the 2nd Amendment has been addressed was in US v. Miller? I realize that there are other cases more dear to the hearts of activists, like fretting about Alito overturning Roe v. Wade, but with all of the gun laws out there, it would seem like a target rich environment. You've got:

The Lautenberg Amendment eneacting a virtual ban of attrition by not allowing legal machine guns manufactured after 1986. What's constitutional about that date? US v. Miller disallowed the short barreled shotgun as not being useful to a militia, yet we allow true military arms to be regualted to death and subject to outright bans in some states. Where's the 14th Amendment there?

The 14th Amendment should be able to help California, too, were it used.

So why is this the way it is? It doesn't appear that anyone's even trying to get these laws overturned. We had to wait for the sunset of Clinton's idiocy, and the rest of them are running their course. Do none of our advocacy groups have the clout to introduce lawsuits to get these things addressed? Are they waiting for a more friendly Supreme Court?

What's the deal?
Top Top