Daley promises to fight to keep handgun ban - Page 2

**4thIDvet** · 07-29-2008, 09:21 AM

So what you are saying SJ is the Heller decision only applied to the District of Columbia. All that money and effort and time spent and the decision means nothing on a State by State level.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was usually the one standing in front of the Judge in my younger days.

So what you are saying is each State can now ignore the SCOTUS decision and it has to be fought on a State by State level. Then back to the Supreme beings in D.C. Damn I'm confused. Why do we have a Supreme Court if this is the case.
Speak English Bud I'm getting old and senile. Plus I only have till 4 o'clock. That starts happy hour.

upgrayedd · 07-29-2008, 09:49 AM

Thanks, I was a bit confused on this one. I think I get it now.
Krink said that this doesnt apply to cities and municipalities because that's the STATES job.
AH HA!
SJ, ya got me wrong scro, read my last post. I AM Most certainly NOT for more fed power and I acknowledged that in my last post.The original plan was to have the Fed govt there FOR THE states, not the other way around.
I was a bit confused, that's all.

**4thIDvet** · 07-29-2008, 10:18 AM

Dont worry about it. If your confused I'm totally friggen confused.

I still don't know what the hell is going on. Hell it took me two days to figure out what the hell SCOTUS was.
Can't we start like a blue collar site.
"Hey Tony what the frig is them big boys talkin?"
" Frig I don't know Joey. Something about packin heat."
" I ain't given up my heater for nuttin Tony."
" Friggn A Joey. I don't know who dem SCOTO guys is but they ain't gonna tell me I can or can't pack."
"Hell things is gettin so bad I gotta wear heat to church."
"Yeah Yeah don't worry about it Joey. Them Scrotum guys says it's ok I guess."

Mods- Poll please for "Blue Collar Site." Thank You.

**sjohnson** · 07-29-2008, 11:00 AM

Gents,

I'm a firm believer that any and all firearms should be available at market prices to any law-abiding citizen of the U.S. Nothing would please me more, personally, than the Supreme Court making that a fact.

But consider how Roe vs. Wade struck down State laws, taking away the rights of individual States to govern abortions. In one landmark decision, the Supreme Court gave more power to the Federal government while taking that power from the States.

Consider how Roe vs. Wade set in motion people and groups of people dedicated to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. Think how, if case law is not carefully crafted to present and protect our natural right of personal defense of ourselves and our country, think how the gun control people and groups will be similarly galvanized.

I'm simply advocating patience so that our natural rights will be maintained; I do not want to provide ammunition to those who would attempt to remove those rights.

And, if not done with care, incorporation of the Second Amendment WILL certainly galvanize the gun controllers to seek an overturn of the Second Amendment. Each year that passes places the Roe vs. Wade at increasing risk of being overturned. Do we want the same for the Second Amendment?

**Akron Armory** · 07-29-2008, 11:45 AM

SJ and The Boys,

As a Political Science major, I can see both sides of this discussion.

Maybe we could cure this new age "having it both ways" issue by going forward and electing Senator Hillary Clinton as our next President.

The EVERYONE could have it BOTH WAYS!

Male / Female or BOTH,...just like our NEW President.

Bob

PS,..and how many of you filthy perverts thought I meant...FRONT or REAR?

**sjohnson** · 07-29-2008, 11:49 AM

kernelkrink · 07-29-2008, 12:14 PM

4th, the Heller decision is a limit on Federal powers, and since DC is a federal district, not a state, it also applies to DC directly. Scalia's wording makes it clear he would have incorporated the second amendment to include restrictions on state laws as well, but since the suit was brought in DC they couldn't do so at this time. Eventually one of the "son of heller" lawsuits being brought against individual city bans in an actual state will work it's way through the system and then it will be incorporated. At least 48 state have some form of gun rights written into their state constitutions, so only Kali and Illinois can legally ban guns right now.

Once we have a few easy wins on our side we can start looking towards getting rid of some of the more questionable federal and state laws. Unfortunately, it will be a long drawn out case by case process.

**4thIDvet** · 07-30-2008, 05:05 AM

Thanks guys for explaining that.
Damn that is why I liked the old days in Vermont. Open carry legal. The only place you could not carry was a town meeting and a bar. Crime rate. HAA Very very low.
A rifle on a rack in your pickup truck was a requirement. Hell new trucks came with a rifle rack.

Two guys broke into a elderly womans barn in the town of Wilmington where I lived. She called the cops and told them she had her shotgun and was heading out to track em. She caught up to one wrapped up in a barbed wire fence. He wet his pants when he saw the shotgun. The cops got the other guy.
The antis just don't get it. Crime will always be there. Guns in the hands of honest legal citizens are what is feared by the criminals.
I guess for the antis they understand that the police are only minutes away.
I gotta E-mail Daley and see if he travels with armed body guards.

kernelkrink · 07-30-2008, 06:51 PM

Your old lady reminds me of an "armed citizen" column in an old NRA mag. Retired lady is awakened by a man in her bedroom, he tells her "stay in bed Granny, and you won't get hurt". As he is kneeling in her closet, rummaging around for valuables she queitly retrieves her double bbl 12 guage from under the bed, sneaks up behind him, and in her words "blew his keister off"! No charges filed, but I'm sure the cleanup was a nightmare! IIRC, he survived and did jail time.