Posted on 01/14/2008 5:41:31 AM PST by servantboy777
Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You know something is very wrong when the “good” guys need masks.
Don’t forget, Patriot Act and the Real ID Act.
IMHO the best AR caliber for your open ranges would be a 6.5 grendel. I use one here in the Panhandle of Texas with awesome results. I purchased a flat top upper receiver from Alexander Arms, installed a 8-32 Burris Scope on it and slapped it on my Colt HBAR and it bucks the wind really well for yote’s and sod poodles !
Just a suggestion..........good luck on yer purchase !
Maybe Soros and the commie leftists have replaced Bush with a clone of their own. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
“Since “unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety . . . “
Take. From you. Greater good. Rinse, repeat.
BTW - did you ever build that custom hunting rifle?
I don't remember the caliber, but I vaguely remember the quick disconnect scope system.
You're ignoring the key ingredient here. That would be "the lesser" part. When your only two choices ARE degrees of evil (they're politicans....what else can you expect?)....you have only one choice. To pick the lesser degree of that evil.
Of course, if people like you abstain from voting, you will, in fact, just hand the election over to the "nth" degree of evil. A socialist/leftist DemocRat.
Which is more evil? A RINO that leans left and disappoints you in many ways and on many issues? Or a socialist/leftist (like Hillary) who would (no doubt in MY mind) get with her radical, extremist, terrorist buds and arrange a ""nuclear"" incident in one or more major US cities....in order for her to easily and quickly declare martial law and in effect....take over. I have no problem picking the lesser evil here. I sure as hell don't want a socialist tyrant running/ruining the country (again).
You jest, but if the Court decides the way the DoJ wants, or worse the way the Democrat former DoJ officials, including Jackboot Janet, indicate in their amicus brief, you can expect the currently languishing in committee "new and improved" AWB ban to magically make it to a couple of those Oh Dark Thirty, "unanamous consent"/"without object" sesssions and appear on his desk. (Hows that for a long sentence? ) Where he will sign it. The bill writers have learned from their previous attempts, this one would ban more guns, and would be more difficult to "get around" while still maintainig the more important features. It's at least as bad as the California law, which has produced some really "interesting" AR derivitives. (Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)
But it won't be after the import bans. That's an easy switch to throw, it can be done by Executive order to BATFE and Customs.
Sure and next time your lesser of evils will be even worse. When you take evil, you will settle for any evil.
The public cannot be threatened since there is nobody there aside from the elected agents and nobody is threatening them.
I will say I am surprised by this as he now is clearly in the open for the average Joe to see. Of course people who kept up with the issue knew he was anti-gun from the get-go, we just didn't realize he was so extreme.
I forgot to add that if I knew Bush was secretly anti-gun then the NRA certainly knew it, yet they supported him strongly.
I was just reading the ballistics for the 6.5 Grendel and was surprised how fast it can push a 130 grain bullet. Very close to the much larger 6.5 Swedish Mauser case and with a 29 inch barrel.
The test I read was in an AR with a 16” barrel.
I have come to truly despise Bush, maybe even more than Hillary. At least she admits up front that she is for gun control.
you do realize that max towing weight on an f350 is something like 20,000lbs, right?
Yes ....I have a old swedish mauser that I use for whitetails and mulies and the 6.5 Grendel’s ballistics are indeed close !
My niece loves to hunt with me and my brother so I built her a Rem Model 7 in 6.5 Grendel with a 3.5-10X VXIII Leupold, stock sock, neoprene sling , and case and gave it too her for her birthday last year. She loves it ! After I built it I almost decided to keep it .....:o)
Good caliber for my needs.
I have, yesterday. The article is a reasonable, if somewhat hyperventilating, summary of the brief.
But in case you, or others, have not, have at it. "But here is a direct quote from the brief, but by all means read the whole thing:
Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
And another
The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review. Just as the Second Congress expressed judgments about what “Arms” were appropriate for certain members of the militia, Congress today retains discretion in regulating “Arms,” including those with military uses, in ways that further legitimate government interests. Under an appropriate standard of review, existing federal regulations, such as the prohibition on machineguns, readily pass constitutional muster.
This is where the headling comes from, I think:
Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.