In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
*
53hawkeye
Member Posts: 4,673
Comments
Trinity +++
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).
In my view, they are a bunch of stupid * whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.
Supreme court upholds gun rights
NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).
In my view, they are a bunch of stupid * whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.
You got that right. And, as always, still a 5-4 vote.
Some will say this is a BAD thing, but how could it not be a step in the right direction?
Trinity +++
Because it codifies the power of all governments to license, register, and regulate who can own a firearm and what type of firearm he or she should own.
Until today, there was a question as to whether States and Cities had that power.
That power is now granted.
The power to infringe is now a part of the Constitution.
How can this possibly be a step in the right direction? It is the direction we have been stepping since 1934.
Brad Steele
Did the SCOTUS rule that gun ownership is an unconditional, non-restrictive right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? No. Did they rule that citizens also have the right to possess a gun outside of the home? No. Did they rule that any citizen of legal age, not convicted of a felony and not judged to be insane, shall be granted a concealed carry permit upon request? No. Better yet, did they rule that concealed carry permits are no longer required at all for a citizen to possess a handgun? No. Did they order all states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states? No.
They're all just a bunch of damned eunuchs. [:(!]
I guess I better go read the ruling.
Trinity +++