I bet they hate that "reply to a story" section. They have almost convinced themselves that they speak for the ignorant masses and they know what's best for them.
Printable View
I bet they hate that "reply to a story" section. They have almost convinced themselves that they speak for the ignorant masses and they know what's best for them.
Perhaps not directly, but they did say this:Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
From the Library of Congress:Quote:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
What constitutes a "dangerous weapon" to you and me is probably far different that what most of our legislators (especially here at the state level these days) consider to be "dangerous". Remember that in the last AWB, many of the restrictions in place were due to nothing more than aesthetic items which didn't change the functionality of the firearm at all. The Heller decision, which barely went in out favor was so watered down that it left states with a great deal of room for individual interpretation and regulative authority.Quote:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
Those elected individuals (at both state and federal levels) who currently govern us see their election into office as their call to duty to protect us from ourselves. This state, with it's current liberal bias, is nothing short of a recipe for further infringement upon our Right. Mark my words, increased regulation and control is on the near horizon.
That doesn't say anything about banning assault weapons. It actually says guns carried for lawful purposes. My AR and AK fall under that definition.
And if the liberals want to do something good with their new found power. They could remove the law that bans smoking in Bars. I think that falls out of favor with them too since their world is seen through either Marxist ideals about control and opression or their own worlds that they live in and nothing else matters.