• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court rules for Gun Ownership

GreNME said:
Like I already said, DC has pretty much already done the same thing regarding requirements for ownership and there's not a peep about the constitutionality over it.
Click to expand...

Not a peep huh? Reminds me of the (apocryphal) quote from Pauline Kael: "I don't understand how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

Since you haven't 'heard a peep', obviously no one is making that argument.

I hear (ok, read) peeps about those obviously intentional roadblocks being unconstitutional, but most of those people are concerned that bringing a suit at this point would be pushing luck too far.

Technically, yes, regulations that by design make it harder for a person to exercise a specific right (whatever the right happens to be) are unconstitutional, whether that is voting, purchasing a gun, or any other right. I've seen the following quote several times in this context:

"Great kid, don't get cocky."
 
MikeMangum, is there anything in that response to what I said earlier that I should construe as an argument in some fashion? All it looks like to me is unnecessary swagger and sloganeering. How about you actually make an argument instead of channeling The Gipper?
 
MikeMangum said:
Not a peep huh? Reminds me of the (apocryphal) quote from Pauline Kael: "I don't understand how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

Since you haven't 'heard a peep', obviously no one is making that argument.

I hear (ok, read) peeps about those obviously intentional roadblocks being unconstitutional, but most of those people are concerned that bringing a suit at this point would be pushing luck too far.

Technically, yes, regulations that by design make it harder for a person to exercise a specific right (whatever the right happens to be) are unconstitutional, whether that is voting, purchasing a gun, or any other right. I've seen the following quote several times in this context:

"Great kid, don't get cocky."
Click to expand...

Right. But being realistic, probably the only way the right of gun ownership will ever be correctly restored would be by a firm of affirmative action enforced by the federal level on uncooperative cities and areas.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Meanwhile, Chicago just passed a new law that should agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/illinois.gun.ban/index.html
Click to expand...

"The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide."

"The plan also bans assault weapons and gun shops in the city."

How could that possibly be reasonable?

"The ordinance allows only one operable firearm per household, meaning all other guns would need to have gun locks or be in locked cases."

Mandatory locks are reasonable?

It also requires owners to have a state firearms permit, to register weapons with Chicago police and to take four hours of classroom training and one hour of firing range training.

I suppose one out of three isn't bad for reasonableness even if you are a devoted anti 2nd Amendment kook.
 
WildCat said:
Not likely.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think they got the point. The law goes beyond the article.

My guess is they could get away with marginal restrictions on types of weapons, and requiring a license requiring maybe a gun safety / use proficiency test every few years. The banning of practice ranges within the city is just stupid.
 
Chicago Tribune :

At least four people were left dead and 12 wounded in overnight shootings in Chicago, most on the South Side, officials said.
Click to expand...
To be uber-cynical about this, if the mayor could somehow coerce the gang-banging thugs into practicing on the range, they might hit their intended target once in a while, instead of innocent bystanders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom