Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?

Do you wonder why some might find your fear irrational, given that the federal "assault weapons" ban has already done what you fear "incorporation" would do? You act as if the individual states were free to ignore the restrictions on ugly rifles. That is simply not so.

199 posted on 10/06/2007 10:39:56 AM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
First of all, the Federal AWB is no more, yet you're still fighting that battle. Let go already. The government surrendered.

Second, the Federal AWB, back when it existed (again, the ban WAS allowed to expire), was passed using the power of the Commerce Clause. Second amendment incorporation or non-incorporation has no effect on a Commerce Clause law.

Third, as such, the Federal AWB was valid, constitutional law that the states cannot ignore, incorporation or not.

My concern is that, under incorporation, Congress bans all handguns and the U.S. Supreme Court rules that handguns are not protected by the second amendment as militia-type weapons since the average soldier doesn't carry one. A lower federal circuit court has already ruled this way.

Or a future liberal U.S. Supreme Court rules that "bear" does not include concealed carry. Many case rulings there.

Or the U.S. Supreme Court rules that "keep" means "keep in a state armory".

215 posted on 10/06/2007 11:10:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson