Posted: 9/30/2009 10:59:31 AM EDT
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court revived the legal battle over gun rights in America, saying it would decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own firearms trumped state and local laws.
In a brief order on Wednesday, the court said it would settle the question by ruling in a dispute over a strict gun control law in Chicago that bans the ownership of handguns in most cases. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58T44S20090930 I am surprised the news has not travelled beyond GD yet. ETA: Feels like a trap. Could lead to more uniform gun laws nationally, both good and bad, or clarify states rights. 
|
|
State's rights are a dead issue. With incorporation and interstate-commerce interpretations it doesn't matter anymore.
The republic is dead. So lets try to make the best of it. Dave Workman's article on it. ETA: For me the ultimate goal is nation-wide recognition of CPL licenses, or lack of need of one for law abiding citizens. |
|
Quoted:
State's rights are a dead issue. With incorporation and interstate-commerce interpretations it doesn't matter anymore. The republic is dead. So lets try to make the best of it. Dave Workman's article on it. ETA: For me the ultimate goal is nation-wide recognition of CPL licenses, or lack of need of one for law abiding citizens. I hear ya. Not to hijack the thread, but I still have not yet met anybody who could tell me why the "full faith and credit" clause does not apply to concealed carry permits, a state issued document no different than a drivers license and marriage certificate. The full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize those, but not CCW? WTF? |
|
Quoted: I hear ya. Not to hijack the thread, but I still have not yet met anybody who could tell me why the "full faith and credit" clause does not apply to concealed carry permits, a state issued document no different than a drivers license and marriage certificate. The full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize those, but not CCW? WTF? Lets take it one step further and ask why a law abiding citizen needs to pay and be licensed by his government for permission to exercise his god given rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes rights that the government shouldn't regulate without our permission. Lets have CCW permits be something for former felons who have been released and have shown that they aren't going back to that life if we are going to have them at all. |
|
Lets take it one step further and ask why a law abiding citizen needs to pay and be licensed by his government for permission to exercise his god given rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes rights that the government shouldn't regulate without our permission. Lets have CCW permits be something for former felons who have been released and have shown that they aren't going back to that life if we are going to have them at all.
I like this idea. |
|
Quoted:
Lets take it one step further and ask why a law abiding citizen needs to pay and be licensed by his government for permission to exercise his god given rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes rights that the government shouldn't regulate without our permission. Lets have CCW permits be something for former felons who have been released and have shown that they aren't going back to that life if we are going to have them at all.
I like this idea. +1,000,000,000 |
|
Quoted:
I hear ya. Not to hijack the thread, but I still have not yet met anybody who could tell me why the "full faith and credit" clause does not apply to concealed carry permits, a state issued document no different than a drivers license and marriage certificate. The full faith and credit clause forces other states to recognize those, but not CCW? WTF? Be careful what you ask for, imagine the reverse abuse of "licensing". Perhaps CA, MD and NY may start licensing child-prostitution or sex-slavery or beastiality or Lord knows what... would another state then have to recognize the full faith and credit? Just saying... |
|
someone made the point on another board recently that the 86 ban on machine guns has a loophole, all that is needed is for a law to be passed saying "the state authorizes citizens of the state to posses machine guns providing they are registered with the BATFE" and individual citizens could buy post 86 machine guns, seems like a lot less work than overturning the Hughes ammendment TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 (o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. |
|
Quoted: someone made the point on another board recently that the 86 ban on machine guns has a loophole, all that is needed is for a law to be passed saying "the state authorizes citizens of the state to posses machine guns providing they are registered with the BATFE" and individual citizens could buy post 86 machine guns, seems like a lot less work than overturning the Hughes ammendment TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 (o) (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. We need to get gregwhore the fuck out of office and get a firearms-friendly replacement there, ASAP. Not just for the above reason, obviously, but it would help! 
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.