General

[freedom]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

and if you don't know what a preamble is, then i'm a militia of one...


here in the people's republic of new jersey, you can "barely" own an SKS but just make sure the county judge you might have to go before understands the law the same way you do...

[Mar]

sweet - now you guys will be able to protect yourselves from the King of England.

[Cunha]

...or better yet, the guy that breaks into my house to rob me.

[PolarMonkey]

Originally Posted by Drum

The only problem that I see springing from this ruling is this; How are the neo-conservatives going to turn this into an outrage perpetrated by liberal activist judges?



Hooray for handguns!



D.

The neo-cons may not have the opportunity, but the radical liberals sure didn't waste any time before using that argument.

The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst.

From the Brady bunch:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=878

[Painthappy]

Judicial activism.. lol... You got to admit, whatever "side" politically someone is on, if it doesn't go their way, they call it judicial activism. Just an observation.

NOW:

This brings up an interesting dilemma... Will anyone WANT to bring this to the high court? Ok, you've got the gun toters, let's call them, and the brady bunch on the other side.

Going to the high court means someone loses, and loses huge!!! It means that the high court will need to fully interpret the 2nd amendment. If the supreme court follows the last court, then the brady campaign is basically out of business. Same is true the other way around....

So will anyone have the stones to take it further, or will it just get dropped here and keep playing out the small battles? Interesting.

[Dylan6-0]

As an extreme liberal, I see the ownerships of guns very important. Cool thing about CT,is once u get your permit for pistols, you have to conceal it, well i guess thats cool. I am not sure how hard it is to get the permit though.

[shartley]

This all goes to show though that our nation is dragged around by the nose by lawyers and politicians. After this many years (from the conception of the constitution) we still have a debate over what it means? Come on….. I wonder how much of this would be debated if you removed the money from the equation (I.E. those getting paid to argue about it).

I believe in many cases (and gun ownership is one of them) the Constitution does not say what EITHER side claims it does. And it brings to mind another famous line from a politician on “definitions”…. “It all depends on what your definition of IS is.”

(NOTE: This is not an attack on Clinton or opening it up for a political party or politician bash fest, but his words did put a face to the “thinking” of far too many lawyers and politicians IMHO.)

[Lrrpie-CT]

Originally Posted by Dylan6-0

I am not sure how hard it is to get the permit though.

Hard to believe, seeing how politically liberal CT has become, but CT is a shall issue state meaning that as long as you don't have a criminal record or some other limiting condition (serious mental illness) the state must issue the permit. Unfortunately Connecticut instituted its own "assault weapon" ban back in the early 90's that is much stricter than the now dead Federal law. We're the home of Colt and Ruger as well as so many other gun manufacturers yet many of their products can only be purchased out of state. Go figure.

[NoForts4Me]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

It means that the high court will need to fully interpret the 2nd amendment.

That is the sad part. There should not have been laws enacted contrary to the Constitution to begin with. Since there have been, we may have to go back and revisit it.

Originally Posted by shartley

I wonder how much of this would be debated if you removed the money from the equation (I.E. those getting paid to argue about it)

Ah, the root of the problem. You can say this for the majority of the laws on the books, which are full of holes and open to interpretation, so the lawyers will have something to do. I think I read that in 2003 60% of the Senators were lawyers. It's all a good ol' boy/girl network where they are taking care of each other and fattening their wallets.

[Tohri]

Originally Posted by NoForts4Me

That is the sad part. There should not have been laws enacted contrary to the Constitution to begin with. Since there have been, we may have to go back and revisit it.

I dunno, I think there's a provision in the Constitution that says that the partaking of chemical substances and drugs may not be infringed oupon by the government.

Which leads me to figure on a compromise: The Gun lovers can have their guns if the hippies can have their reefer.

Also, That whole 'Consealed handgun' thing always bugged me. Because what if I (Theoretically) want to wear my large caliber handgun on my belt in an open gesture to actually Deter Criminals?
Or for that matter, Wear an M-1 garand on my back when walking through new bedford? Can I have a Bayonette incase I don't want to alarm other residents?
I Don't want to carry a little glock in my pocket to kill people, I want them to **** themselves as I whip my long rifle around, switch on the laser sight, and bring the little dot over their liver. So, You know, I -Don't- have to kill them. Avoids a bunch of trouble that way.