Ohio's costly gun ban

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | July 30, 2005 | Editorial

[paul51]

Any politician that doesn't believe responsible law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves and their families is a dangerous threat and should be thrown out of office.

[Dan from Michigan]

As a gun owner, I don't know where I'm not wanted.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bwahahahahahhahaha. I've never seen that shirt.

Go Spartans!

[MikefromOhio]

I had the opportunity to go to the OSU-Michigan game last year and some of the tshirts being worn by some of the co-eds were GREAT!!!

[Dan from Michigan]

What do you tell the U of M cheerleader to pick her up after she smiles at you?
Nice tooth, babe.

You're stranded on an island with a cannibal, mass murderer, and a Michigan fan. You have a gun, but only two bullets. Who do you shoot?
The Michigan fan...twice.

[MikefromOhio]

What keeps Ohio from sliding down into Kentucky?

The fact that Michigan sucks :)

Ann Arbor is a whore!!!

[Crim]

The only good thing that ever came out of michigan is I-75....*grin*

(required Toledo humor)

CCW is a beautiful thing

.357 Mag S&W, 4" ,stainless

speak softly...carry a hand cannon

[Shooter 2.5]

Not really. Automatic and semi-automatic are defined by the action of the recoil and not the design of the trigger mechanism.

Definitions of Semi-Automatic on the Web:

* A type of action in which gas from the burning gunpowder in the shell automatically ejects the spent shell and loads another.

There have been only two revolvers that were semi-automatic to this date. The British Webley-Fosbery and the Italian Mateba. I think the Mateba is still in production.

[labette]

Shhhh. You'll start driving up property prices.

[robertpaulsen]

Isn't Columbus a suburb of Cleveland?

[MikefromOhio]

Why would a city that is bigger be a suburb of a city that is smaller?

Columbus is bigger than Cleveland AND Cincy these days, especially in terms of city population...

and Politically the 2 are polar opposites as well...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Plenty of room here.

[robertpaulsen]

"I haven't heard of any such a case making its way through the lower courts"

Almost all of those cases are based on state laws, and the federal courts have ruled time and time again that the second amendment is not applicable to state gun laws.

The showdown will come from a federal gun law (the federal AWB was a good opportunity, but it was challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, not the second amendment) not a state gun law.

The closest we got was the 2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson where they stated that the federal law (18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8)) preventing gun possession if subject to a domestic violence restraining order covering was unconstitutional and that the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service.

But, this was countered by other rulings of the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts that "a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia."

We've got a ways to go before we have the USSC resolve this.

[labette]

Yeah, I know. The Ozarks really are one of the few "Garden of Edens".

[musanon]

You wrote:

It seems that someday there must be a definitive case about the Second Amendment; i.e. does it protect an individual right, or a worthless collective one?
But then again, I haven't heard of any such a case making its way through the lower courts, so who knows when it will happen.
22 Aetius

---

Almost all of those cases are based on state laws, and the federal courts have ruled time and time again that the second amendment is not applicable to state gun laws.

The showdown will come from a federal gun law (the federal AWB was a good opportunity, but it was challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, not the second amendment) not a state gun law.

The closest we got was the 2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson where they stated that the federal law (18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8)) preventing gun possession if subject to a domestic violence restraining order covering was unconstitutional and that the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service.

But, this was countered by other rulings of the Fourth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts that "a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia."

We've got a ways to go before we have the USSC resolve this.
55 robertpaulsen

---

Aetius, you see above a post that, on the surface, looks to be written by a supporter of gun rights.
Actually, he does not agree that "the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service".

He agrees that a State gun-control law does not violate our gun rights unless it violates that States constitution.

California's prohibition on 'assault weapons' is just fine with him.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Just got back from a pontoon ride that included breakfast on the lake (fresh melon, pancakes, sausage and potatoes with bloody marys and mimosas), then stopping by a friend's place where they were working on their sea wall; we tried to act sympathetic. We went swimming for a couple of hours mid-day. Back for our naps...

[Aetius]

Whatever the case, I agree with Thomas Jefferson in that the Sup Court was never intended to have this sort of 'final arbiter of the Constitution' power that it has given to itself.

Its a disgrace that we have to wait for as few as 5 people to tell us what the Second Amendment means.

[musanon]

Aetius, you see above a post that, on the surface, looks to be written by a supporter of gun rights.
Actually, he does not agree that "the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service".
He agrees that a State gun-control law does not violate our gun rights unless it violates that States constitution.
California's prohibition on 'assault weapons' is just fine with him.
57 musanon

---

Whatever the case, I agree with Thomas Jefferson in that the Sup Court was never intended to have this sort of 'final arbiter of the Constitution' power that it has given to itself.

Its a disgrace that we have to wait for as few as 5 people to tell us what the Second Amendment means.
59 Aetius

---

You've been misinformed.
The socialist gun grabbers & the 'states righters', as in the post above, --- are among those that are spinning that the USSC has the power to "tell us what the Second Amendment means". -- This is simply not true, - and I look forward to the day they try to do so.

-- The Constitution is clear on this issue, and the people would immediately make that fact clear to the Court, and to any officials stupid enough to try to enforce a prohibitive infringement.