-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The commerce clause also deals with interstate trade. If the weapon is made in New Jersey, the Federal Government has the ability to regulate the foundries business and trade to New York.
The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep and bear arms, it states nothing about preventing the government from regulating trade of weapons across state lines.
Yes, in fact it can even be simpler. All there has to be is a tax on that type of product and it falls within the federal scope. See Also ATF
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Yes, this was an extreme example, but if you read the court cases within the scope of the above, the rights of individuals in that scope are regulated.
And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.
The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed. The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
At the new bass pro shop there is a fine gun room its the coolest thing I ever seen. To me its not about if but how many. :laugh4:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And regulations enacted by Congress top the Constitution? I don't think so.
The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The Second Amendment refers to the perpetuation of free government by the people, in that the people can not be oppressed if they are not first disarmed.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The right to bear arms is therefore absolute; it is not granted, but proudly acknowledged by the sovereign convention of the American people in its Bill of Rights. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation.
*Insert the plethora of Acts enacted here*
and their constitutionality
U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
Nuclear suitcases can fall under regulation in so many ways its not even worth discussing further unless you just like to throw stones at a hornets nest. If you want to go to the integrity of law then we don't have to look any further than the principle of self defense against each other and against one's government. To claim nuclear status as a right of arms is to turn the principle on itself as there is no self defense against the nuclear weapon. We can also go to the nature of the weapon.
U.S. Supreme Court (and that darn balancing act necessary for government for and by a free people)
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The Bill of Rights negates the role and function of the Supreme Court? I don't think so...
Your quotes make little sense without source and context.
I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.
In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.
In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
. Congress can pass no law upon it, nor impair it by regulation. The right to bear nuclear suitcases is one of the 'high powers' pertaining to the citizens, independent of law-making.
@Redleg. Good to see you're back, hope your house deal turns out well. And on topic: yes, I am aware of all that, I have read Lopez (1995).
Incorrect Adrian within the body of the constitution the Congress can regulate several things that while it does not remove the right to keep and bear arms it has an impact on it.
For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.
Still waiting on the final paperwork, on the house, but it looks like it happen as planned. BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Your quotes make little sense without source and context.
They should be able to be interpreted plainly, yes? They are however the courts opinions in challenges to Acts regulating firearms you can take your pick and you'll pretty much find those opines in most, in essence and directly in 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I believe the USSC has never directly addressed the issue of the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
They have many times and often in cases where the integrity to the decision is the individuals right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
From the inception of the Republic onward, however, the familiar two schools of interpretation have often competed. And the USSC has always come down on the side of regulation and restriction.
Not by a long shot when it comes to what you call restriction and you forget the elongated process to beginning regulation. They don't just throw hazard regulation without it being forged on the basis of constitutionality. Hence the challenge to regulation in the USSC is a bar set high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
In three out of four cases the Court ruled that the Amendment limited the powers of Congress, not those of the States, to regulate or restrict the individual possession of arms. The State laws that restricted gun ownership to Protestants or whites were happily sustained.
3 out of which 4?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
In the fourth, the Court ruled that even a weapon as innocent as a sawed-off shotgun in the hands of some poor sob did not qualify as a weapon that could be used in a militia and could hence be outlawed. I quote Miller:
If I remember correctly this was a challenge to the Title II weapon classification as it fell under the ATF. There is much more I believe, so you might want to quote the decision and opinions in its entirety or provide a link to findlaw or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.
Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
For examble explosives are not considered arms (..)
How so? And by whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
BTW the railroad is a great job, even though it is one of the more dangerous civilian careers around.
Well, it's not as if you ever walked away from danger in your life. ~ ;)
Just don't take that left track in Albuquerque...
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Wish I had the time to go into all of this and what is wrong with the system…too darn late this evening!
The Supreme Court derives it ability to declare laws unconstitutional not for it position but as the highest Jury of the land….go back and check…
Regulations are not laws but rules made by Federal Agencies like the ATF
They carry the force of law only because Congress more or less allows it so…but very questionable at best…but just try to fight it in court…
The interstate commerce clause is the catch all for congress to circumvent much too much that they were otherwise prohibited from acting on….
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
I don't think I've stepped in stuff that smelled as bad as that opinion my friend.
Neither did I ever leave something like it behind, my friend. As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Have to cut this one short as my daughter is pulling on the arm to play...will return, but I'm anxious to hear more,
That is the most disarming argument in this entire thread. I will of course desist. ~;)
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
LoL. He said "disarming". :giggle:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
As you will have understood by now, it is my view that the Second itself is starting to smell to high heaven. To paraphrase Marx' words on Feuerbach: stop interpreting it, change it.
The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
The problem with a concrete code of law which lacks for the need of interpretation is that it cannot be lasting.
The margin of interpretation can be considerably reduced for our time.
Some time ago I was struck by an article on the topic by Californina Law Professor Calvin Massey: Guns, Extremists and the Constitution (2002).
Massey states that American courts, including the States Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Court, have taken diverse and contrary positions on the issue of individual arms ownership. But he also contends that there has always been common ground and that this is worth exploring.
The undeniable theme of the arms right is defense - collective and individual. Collective defense is the melody of the theme, but the repeated sound of individual defense is the harmony. The arms right is not just about the right to die in uniform; it is about defending ourselves, our loved ones, our community, our nation, from those who would harm what we value. Not only is there evidence, albeit contested, that a personal self-defense right was part of the original specific intent of the Second Amendment's framers, and additional evidence that a considerable portion of the polity gave it that construction over the ensuing century or so, the personal self-defense interpretation comports with the slightly more general intent of defense. Our nation is no longer defended by citizen-soldiers. We are not Switzerland, where an armed cadre of citizen soldiers continues to form the core of national defense. Ambient circumstances have changed; the "common defense" purpose of the Second Amendment has shriveled into a useless raisin. But the need to defend against ordinary criminality is, unfortunately, still with us, and the right to defend against criminal assault is surely not useless.
I have to say the 'useless raisin' didn't quite take my fancy. I would put it more graphically: it is as if the Second has only one leg left to stand on. That is the individual self-defense leg. The collective self-defense leg has shrivelled to the point of nonexistence. However, the owner is suffering from severe phantom pain.
Massey goes on to explain the main reason for the acrimony that renders present-day debate of the Second so futile:
One of the reasons why the gun debate is so polarized is because many gun owners simply do not believe the disclaimers of gun controllers that they do not intend to confiscate all private firearms. Indeed, the currently fashionable trend to describe firearms as a public health problem, as if guns were a pathogenic organism like smallpox virus, exacerbates this fear because the logical response to equating guns to smallpox is to eradicate the noxious pathogen.176 Because gun owners do not believe that gun controllers will be content with any control scheme short of abolition of private possession of firearms, they tend to overinflate their claim of constitutional entitlement. The result is a "debate" that is an angry shouting match from very long distance. Admitting that the arms right includes a private right to possess firearms for individual self-defense provides some measure of comfort to gun owners and simultaneously denies the grossly inflated claim that firearms ownership is an absohite right or that it includes the right to pack a Ryder truck full of ammonia fertilizer and diesel oil and detonate the package in front of a federal office building. Of course, this will not satisfy either the hard-core abolitionists or the fanatic insurrectionists, but I am not interested in an interpretation of constitional law that panders to extremists and lunatics.
Note the opposition of nightmares in this passages: the fear of total eradication of handguns versus the fear of low-intensity civil wars waged by the militia movement.
What this article suggests to me, is that there may be a possible 'historic' deal (akin, in a way, to the Northern Ireland peace accord) between hardcore abolitionists and hardcore militia freaks. The deal would be that the (illusive) right to collective self-defense of the militia movement is traded against the (illusory) ideal of total gun control of the abolitionists.
A future Second would have to be so formulated that the right to ownership of arms suitable for individual self-defense is acknowledged, whilst the right to own and bear arms for any other purpose then individual self-defense is prohibited. Exemptions can be made for hunting and sports along the lines of many present-day States Acts regulating gun ownership.
Of course this is an ilusion on my part. As a non-American all of this is none of my business anyway. But it beats the assignment I am on at the moment, my kids are asleep and so is the love of my life, and I am out of cognac.
Where is Louis when you need him?
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The law is perfectly clear, every citizen has the right to have bear arms. I guess you could make a bear arm into a gun however... It should be legal to own a 7.62 mm Assault Bear Arm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It is obvious that the USSC has always been activist to the core, ready to discriminate non-whites, poor sobs and prospective purveyors and buyers of battlefield nukes for legitimate self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Just wanted to say thanks, had a great laugh with these and other posts.:2thumbsup:
Well, on topic, I still live in the german dictatorship that bans knives with a blade longer than 20cm and all sorts of other weapons.
but then again, we learned our lesson and don't elect warmongering criminals into the government anymore.
:wizard:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
At the time the constitition was written, the weapons of the day were quite different. If you read quotes from the founders, you can see they thought self defense was a right americans should have. The 2nd amendment is interpretted in that context.
:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Adrian:
You make one compelling point in your disagreement with 2nd -- the times have indeed changed. You point to the "shriveling" of the common defense as enacted by the citizenry as undercutting the need for such a right, or at least preserving that right in a more curtailed form than originally penned (which, I agree, by using the term ARMS was meant to include any and all weaponry).
For me, it is actually the sea-change we have undergone in the basic framework of the republic. At its founding, the United States was a confederacy of sovereign states. This was deemed too balkanized a situation and most of the FF wanted some greater measure of stability and thus the Constitution was born. Each state was still sovereign, but had voluntarily passed certain powers to the national government to provide a degree of consistency and stability -- particularly in interstate commerce and international relations -- while retaining most sovereign power and agreeing in common to the preservation of certain individual rights deemed crucial to the purpose of limiting government and preventing tyranny.
This national form was grievously wounded by Lincoln's effective prosecution of the Civil War. States could be sovereign but, once having become a part of the United States could not sunder themselves from that polity by any means (there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of the FF would have disagreed with this). Thus the Federal government ceased to be an umbrella and became an overseer.
The 16th and 17th ammendments created the means to eradicate the power of the states more or less completely. The 16th inaugurated direct taxation of individuals by the federal government, allowing congress to do more than tax interstate commerce or international trade and giving the federal government the "ultimate" revenue tool [it was, of course, passed fairly readily -- after all, it was only for 1% of the income of top earners like the Vanderbilts and didn't affect the regular guy -- the soak it to the rich theme is an old one in politics]. Prior to this (save during war), National funds were the product of these commerce taxes and monies granted to the federal government by the states.
The 17th ammendment was an open and shut decision. What could be more democratic than removing the selection of U.S. Senators from the "smoke-filled rooms" of the state legislatures and allowing votes by the people of those states? Democratic, no doubt, but now BOTH branches of Congress have a directly vested interest in pandering to the voters and the state leadership is of comparatively little importance to them.
With this springboard, and aided by national crises (Depression, WW2, ColdWar), the F. Roosevelt and Johnson administrations (notably, but to be fair it is NOT as though Eisenhower or Nixon or Carter, or either Bush did a lot to alter this, and Reagan's efforts in this vein didn't go nearly as far as his rhetoric) brought the federal government into direct administration of services and many (most) aspects of every citizen's life.
Together, these events have shifted the United States from a Union of States to a Federal Government with numerous prefectures called states. In this context, the Federal government is keeping the issue and debate thereof firmly centered on personal weaponry.
Many of our liberals really do want to ban and confiscate personal guns. They view the government as the source of our protection and see a monopoly of force by that government as a powerful tool to decrease deadly violence. Many of our conservatives view this as an attack on their individual rights, and doubt the government's ability to provide better protection than they can create for themselves.
But you are correct, Adrian, in that the country for which this ammendment of individual rights was penned no longer exists. My preference would be to reform the country itself towards a style wherein that right was of greater purpose -- not to reform the ammendment to more aptly fit the nation as is. The trend of history suggests to me, however, that I am doing little more than pissing in the wind. I shall now conclude this rant, and go find some dry pants.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
For examble explosives are not considered arms, hince the nuclear suitcase can be regulated based upon the other clauses within the constitution. Same thing can be applied concerning other types of ordance, versus weapons.
Does this mean that the government can say...."alright...you can have all the rifles and other guns you want, but as of this moment it is illegal for you to own any gunpowder" :idea2:
that works for me....without gunpowder even a .50 cal sniper rifle is just a fancy stick.......and since gunpowder is an explosive, and explosives ownership isn´t protected by the constitution.....well....:laugh4:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
*Thinks of Uzis and MAC-10s with insane rates of fire* :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
The comedian, Chris Rock, had an interesting solution, make bullets $5000 a piece....:laugh4:
it would solve the problem of innocent bystanders......you would make damn sure you hit what you are aiming at:laugh4:
that joke is amazing... :2thumbsup:
Quote:
I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your ******* head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property!?'
-Chris Rock
:smash:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Ronin, when I heard that stand up gig, I nearly passed out from laughing so hard. The Comedy Channel on XM Radio can be dangerous when driving.:laugh4:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Does this mean that the government can say...."alright...you can have all the rifles and other guns you want, but as of this moment it is illegal for you to own any gunpowder" :idea2:
Possible but doubtful.
Quote:
that works for me....without gunpowder even a .50 cal sniper rifle is just a fancy stick.......and since gunpowder is an explosive, and explosives ownership isn´t protected by the constitution.....well....:laugh4:
The explosives that have been defined as controlled are listed under regulations by the ATF. Now you pose an interesting solution to gun control.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I have to say the 'useless raisin' didn't quite take my fancy. I would put it more graphically: it is as if the Second has only one leg left to stand on. That is the individual self-defense leg. The collective self-defense leg has shrivelled to the point of nonexistence. However, the owner is suffering from severe phantom pain.
I just love the idea that we should simply read out or ignore any parts of the Constitution that we don't feel are useful anymore. "Constitution" is such a strong word anyway.... guidelines really.:rolleyes:
There's a clear mechanism for making changes to the Constitution- if something has become unworkable or irrelevant in modern context, it should be changed, not ignored. Talk about slippery slopes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But you are correct, Adrian, in that the country for which this ammendment of individual rights was penned no longer exists. My preference would be to reform the country itself towards a style wherein that right was of greater purpose -- not to reform the ammendment to more aptly fit the nation as is. The trend of history suggests to me, however, that I am doing little more than pissing in the wind. I shall now conclude this rant, and go find some dry pants.
I hear ya...:yes:
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
There's a clear mechanism for making changes to the Constitution- if something has become unworkable or irrelevant in modern context, it should be changed, not ignored. Talk about slippery slopes...
That's what I said.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
That's what I said.
In that case, good luck with getting it changed. :beam:
I'm happy with the current reading....
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
In that case, good luck with getting it changed. :beam:
I don't care one way or the other.
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'? I mean, that is amazing. Hundreds of millions of Americans are under the impression that there are widely different readings, and all this time they've been fooled! Hallelujah.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line.
Quote:
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
This actually answers Adrian's question more directly. Cannons weren't called arms, they were called ordnance.
Although apparently they allow you to own them anyway.
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Out of curiosity were private citizens allowed to own cannons back in the day? With all the arguments of tanks and jets I'm just curious whether antique artillery is out of line
Indeed, cannons were legal to own. There were no regulations on what you could own back then.
Quote:
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'?
What the constitution was intended to mean by the founders - and what it does mean, no matter what anti-gunners insist about collective rights.
Taxing bullets is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Adrian has a point about the collective defense mentality going away - but we should seek to bring that back, as a matter of civic responsibility.
Crazed Rabbit
-
Re: Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Indeed, cannons were legal to own. There were no regulations on what you could own back then.
Just because it was legal at one point doesn't necessarily mean that it's protected under the 2A... Remember, under our system you're pretty much allowed to do anything by default, unless there's a law specifically against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
But what reading are you referring to as 'the current reading'? I mean, that is amazing. Hundreds of millions of Americans are under the impression that there are widely different readings, and all this time they've been fooled! Hallelujah.
There's a pretty clear statement of keeping arms as a personal right. There is room for some rational debate about how for that goes- but please spare us the absurdities. I think a rational position would be personal arms. Nuclear weapons, capable of eradicating millions are pretty hard to argue for individual use for defense of your liberty/country.