Maryland, Delaware, DC, Illinois, New Mexico... half of the worst areas have the most restrictions for 1999-2000
Kansas is the only one of the best areas without "Shall-issue" or no restrictions. Coincidence only, of course.
Posted on 03/29/2007 12:48:37 PM PDT by neverdem
"Written long ago". You say that like it means that it's irrelevant. As if, well, back then, they meant such and such but screw that -- today it means "Americans".
Yeah, it was written long ago. That's where we have to go, however, to find out what the Founding Fathers meant. And when they said "the people" they meant "the people at large".
And the people at large excluded non-whites, women, children, and non-citizens.
Maryland, Delaware, DC, Illinois, New Mexico... half of the worst areas have the most restrictions for 1999-2000
Kansas is the only one of the best areas without "Shall-issue" or no restrictions. Coincidence only, of course.
Bump to read later
I keep forgetting that in this modern age of computers that it still takes several years for these statistics to be published.
"The Miller court made no ruling. The case was remanded to the lower court. No one "won" or "lost". "
Miller reversed the lower court decision and remanded back for review. Miller had no representation at all. He was dead and no defense was present. The case is invalid and MUST be revisited by the USSC at some point.
The USSC did make a ruling, even if it was unconstitutional of them to do so since there was no representation for Miller.
Mike
A gun in practically every home, and guess what? Crime is about non-existent."
The standard weapon for a crime is a pistol and not a rifle. The SIG SG 550 is an assault rifle.
By the way, why can't I buy an anti-aircraft gun, an automatic gun or an RMK 30 to protect my home? Aren't these arms also?
What are you suggesting?
The standard weapon for protecting oneself against a crime is a pistol and not a rifle.
Against what kind of crime you want to protect yourself? In case of burglary it makes no difference. In case of an assault a pistol is better but best choice for the attacker.
Ban pistols but allow rifles.
But you can't accept any limitation to your right to keep and bear arms. If it makes sense to you to not allow automatic guns or rifles then there is no limit to ban any arm. I want a RMK 30 to protect me.
Back to Switzerland. You're not allowed to carry your rifle and ammunition at the same time. Carrying is only allowed just for certain purpose, e.g. "compulsory shooting".
Should the government in the future become an oppresive regime, I'd wager that there'd be at least a few people with the moxy to stock up on such weapons. And I'd be behind them.
Grammatical Analysis of 2nd amendment, 1991
You may want to bookmark it. I just happened to come across it on another thread.
I would think "strict scrutiny" would be applied to a right protected by one of the Bill of Rights. Which in turn would mean that only very narrowly tailored laws would be allowed, mainly allowing infringement only via due process such as conviction of a felony with the infringement of the convict's RKBA as part of the individual sentence, if it is to extend past the time of the convict's incarceration, or adjudication of mental infirmity.
The difference is that in RvW they found something in the Constitution that isn't there. In this case they'd have to deny that something that is there, is there. Much harder to find a legal fig leaf to do that, not that some of them won't manage, but hopefully not a majority.
But if is to be a majority, then we best find out now, not after another couple of decades of gun control.
The feds clearly won, because if the court had upheld the ruling of the court below, which ruled that the National Firearm Act was a violation of the Second Amendment, and thus no law at all, they would have lost.
However at most the Miller ruling would mean that only keeping and bearing arms of military significance is protected by the second amendment, at least that was interpretation of "Miller" put forth a couple of years later by the First Circuit in "Cases".
What the remand may have been for, was to determine if a short barreled shotgun was a militarily significant weapon.
For a fact, they had been a few decades before, and even at the time were in use by police, as they are today. Police, more likely to be "mounted", are willing to give up ammunition capacity for "handiness", which is the reason the military prefers somewhat longer barrels, not for the barrels themselves, but for the added magazine capacity.
Well, Miller wasn't the party taking the case to the Supreme Court, so that is a misunderstanding of what "standing" means. However they did not rule that the Second Amendment did not apply to Miller, but rather that the weapon was not the sort of arms whose keeping and bearing is so protected. Even that is not quite right, they ruled that the lower court should not have ruled that a short barreled shotgun was such an arm, at least without taking some evidence to that effect.
It's really a very weak reed for the advocates of gun control to depend upon.
It wouldn't be just 922(o) it would be all or most all of the National Firearms Act. Having to pay a tax to exercise an individual right is not something the Courts look upon with much favor.
But only in DC. Good for DC residents, not so good for the rest of us.
It no longer excludes non-whites, 15th amendment, or women (19th amendment), or the poor (24th amendment). It still excludes non-citizens, although the Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases even non-citizens are included. But since you were basing that on who was allowed to vote in federal elections, I guess we can say it still excludes non-citizens.
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.