Found this and thought it interesting:

THE COURT:   THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
MR. HALBROOK:   YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.

THE COURT:   YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?

MR. HALBROOK:   YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.

[See: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.]


Info

Originally found here:  infowars.com

If this is the intent of the NRA should we commit our money to them?

This was, if memory serves, the DC case. DC requires gun registration, but has not allowed the registration of any additional guns for 20 years or so. The point was to establish that the right to own guns cannot be abolished, without addressing the legality of restrictions that are imposed on ownership. The point was to narrow the legal issue to the single, incremental question: do people have the right to own guns? The lawfullness of registration or other restrictions was a question for another case on another day.

Sorry FLA--not a troll

Just simple curiosity into big gov and those in power supposedly for our good...

JHill:
1. DC does not allow possession of unregistered firearms.
2. DC does not allow new handgun registrations to be entered into the database.
Thus,
3. DC residents are prohibited from buying handguns.

The NRA wants to void #2, thus allowing new handgun ownership.  Later, they could chip away at registration.  Its baby steps, just like the assault weapons ban wasnt passed over night, it took years of chipping away at our rights to get to that point, we must now do the reverse to get them back.

Kharn

infowars is a steaming crock of brown stuff

Here was my take on it at the time.

I still feel that way.

Quoted: infowars is a steaming crock of brown stuff

I think you can say "shit" here still.

Quoted: Found this and thought it interesting: THE COURT:   THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. MR. HALBROOK:   YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME. THE COURT:   YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS? MR. HALBROOK:   YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR. [See: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.] Info Originally found here:  infowars.com If this is the intent of the NRA should we commit our money to them?

Dude.....two words.....
CON.......TEXT.

Let's make it  REAL simple. DC has registration. Registration = closed = ban. Halbrook ask 'please, judge, open registration!'. Registration = open = DC residents can buy guns. DC residents can buy guns = better than before! Halbrook no argue for new registration. Argue for people to own guns. Argue open of registration easier argue dismantle registration.