Once there was discussion on these boards about the impact of the Heller decision, known to some as the DC handgun ban case. Some lauded the decision as a pro-gun victory, presumably because it struck down the DC gun ban. The alternative view was that the decision was only a pro-gun victory on the surface because while it struck down an all out ban in DC, the (very conservative) Court went on the specifically suggest that the right to bear arms was limited and that legislation to restrict guns that fell short of an all out ban would likely be upheld. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/court-passes-challenges-restricting-handguns-young-adults-n37196 "The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home, taking a pass on a hot topic that has divided the lower courts.The court declined to grant review of two laws that restrict handgun ownership by young adults — a federal law barring the sale of handguns to customers under 21 and a Texas law forbidding anyone under 21 to carry a handgun in public. Both laws were upheld by the lower courts." The US Supreme Court declining to review two laws that UPHELD gun restrictions . . and also declining to review laws that could have address the right to "bear arms" outside the home. The key to the Heller decision was not its holding, it was the discussion that followed.
Two challenges were brought by the NRA, who apparently believes that Heller acted as a defacto repeal of gun restrictions:"Both expressed frustration that gun-control laws were still mostly intact years after the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District’s ban on handguns.“Given the number of laws enacted by the federal government, states, and localities in the years when a mistaken understanding of the Second Amendment held sway, one would have expected a major reconsideration of extant firearms laws to have occurred,” Washington lawyer Paul D. Clement wrote in the challenge of the federal law. “Instead, jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated the resistance.”The cases are NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and NRA v. McGraw. The court also declined to review Lane v. Holder, in which District residents challenged federal laws that restrict buying a firearm from an out-of-state dealer.Apparently Wayne hangs out in The Cove . . . who woulda thunk it?
May 16th 2014.
Vin continues to show he's an idiot........he spouts with his little gun battle win....but has no clue as to what's brewing in this country. People are fed up with government that empowers themselves and doesn't represent the people. We're a civil society, and we don't take to the streets with our dissent........Will that last?
Vin continues to show he's an idiot........he spouts with his little gun battle win....but has no clue as to what's brewing in this country. People are fed up with government that empowers themselves and doesn't represent the people. We're a civil society, and we don't take to the streets with our dissent........Will that last?
that's an interesting perspective and I agree that the government "empowers themselves and doesn't represent the people." That is why you have 300 million guns and almost unfettered access to guns, a small but strong special interest is key to the government "empower[ing] themselves," more so than individual votes . . and so they pass laws that are aligned with the special interest - in this case gun manufacturers/sellers - and fail to "represent the people." Gun owners are a small minority in this country.
