[45Auto]

To borrow a phrase from the enemies of freedom: The matter of the individual right to keep and bear arms is "well-settled" by the US SC.

[tubebender]

Bump for later

[Eagle Eye]

230 grain bumps.

[Mitchell]

Bump.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Question:

Does Lopez mean that one may manufacture one's own machine gun, as long as one doesn't take it out of state? Does one have to register it and pay $200?

[hobbes1]

No it isn't those are al parts of rulings that don;t carry the effect of a Ruling itself.

However, this is precisely the reason the current administration is arguing that A$$hole Seth Waxmans position in Emerson.

P.S. with regards to Emerson, can anybody hazard a guess as to which Circuit, Pickering was nominated for ? (5Th) I would be willing to bet in the back rooms, that matter was discussed, most of that circuit are Reagan/Bush appointees.

[chainsaw]

Bookmarked

[the crow]

makes me feel better. 2A bump.

[eloy]

Keeper!

[Waco]

When gov't attorneys are before the S.C. is the court supposed to be naive? The attys. "neglected" to mention that shotguns were a military weapon. Didn't the court members already know these facts? Of course they did! This smells to high heaven.

[supercat]

You should look up and add the Thompson/Center Arms case (US Supreme Court--sorry no cite handy) to the list. While the decision was narrowly writtenm, the government nonetheless clearly and unambiguously lost at the Supreme Court level.

[FreePaul]

All this sounds good but it will last only until the Supreme Court starts to rule against the second amendment. This can happen any time the court majority decides that the second amendment shouldn't stand in the way of protecting people from themselves. The present court has ruled that some of the things in the bill of rights don't really mean what they say. There are constant attempts to reverse each of the mentioned decisions.

[gunshy]

Then why, praytell, do we have so many damned antigun laws on the states and federal books?

[krogers58]

To all:

I live in the peoples republic of Illionois, which entirely bans the right to carry a concealed weapon. I have recently moved here, and was not aware of this, before I had moved here, as the state I had lived in did allow CCW permits. I guess the questions I have are: Is this constitutional? What the heck can I do about this? Can I file suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of this law? I suspect if it were that easy, it would already have been done. Are there other states where people have challenged this type of law? If so, does anyone know the outcome of the court decisions? I suspect that I wouldn't get a fair hearing in the state courts, and would need to go federal to even have a chance?

[Abundy]

The quote from Cruikshank is better word for word:

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Examine this reasoning and note the following:

1 - The Cruikshank Court believed that 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' was a right.

2 - The Cruikshank Court links that Right to the Second Amendment.

3 - The Cruikshank Court elevates the Right to 'bear arms for a lawful purpose' to that of a Fundamental Right by virture of the statements that "[T]his is not a right granted by the Constitution" and "[N]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." [This is classic fundamental right language that was used by the SCOTUS years later in Griswold. This is SCOTUS recognizing a natural right that exists with or without the Bill of Rights. That's huge.]

Cruikshank is very, very important case for our side...

[Mike Johnson]

I'm not optimistic that the courts will protect our RKBA. The Supreme Court didn't repeal the NFA in Miller. Despite all the lip service paid to RKBA as an individual right, the 5th Circuit didn't repeal 18 USC 922(g)(8) in Emerson. Actually, under the Emerson court's socialist definition of a right (i.e., government may infringe upon a right provided it has a "compelling reason"), we have no rights at all. The nanny state's reasons to infringe our rights are always compelling. Very few of our federal judges have ever seen a "gun control" law that they didn't like.

[stevio]

Good work and thanks.

[1Old Pro]

Once Bush gets 2-3 more conservatives on the bench, the NRA should look for and take cases before them to settle this issue once and for all.