This link did not work, but for an easily curable reason. Get rid of the period at the end of it, so it is just www.nraila.org/heller

and it will work.

Today, for the first time ever, I saw someone else, besides myself, reading an NRA magazine on a NYC subway. We had a short but pleasant conversation.

Excellent analysis, and one that would give the SCOTUS a nice way to rule on the matter without really resolving anything.

In the end, I think (and hope) that they come to the decision that keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental individual right, and that "well regulated" means that the government has a duty to ensure that the individuals bearing arms are peaceable individuals.

My ultimate dream for this would be a federal carry permit, perhaps administered by the DOJ, and valid on all 50 states. I'd be willing to take training and show a level of weapons competence for such a permit, thus being well regulated and individually bearing arms.

As a side note: The U.N. and the rest of the world will be watching this decision...clowns!!!

Sorry Martin...delete if you deem it necessary.

This is what's required just to buy and own a firearm in Canada.

Quit teasing us! I agree!!!!

Apparently good ole CA is gonna try another way, they are working on making it really hard to buy handgun ammo...

link

Let's just all move down to Texas. We can visit Blast.

Blitz

I'm not worried.

Guns just aren't a big thing for me or my plans. I have them but if not no biggie. Seeing as that most of what I own are long guns and unlikely to be outlawed any time soon I'm unlikely to be effected. Even then. There are other ways.

Conceivably, given the wording of the article in question, they could say there is no individual right to gun ownership and that right is reserved for militia. I doubt they would see it that way but it is possible.

Also I wouldn't be so sure that the NRA talking points have anything to do with how they should "interpret the Constitution in the same frame of mind as the men who wrote it and intended it to be interpreted". At the time the BOR was written there were in fact existing regulations in many locations and localities and these were deemed reasonable and accepted by most people at the time. The idea that the writers of the BOR had an "any gun for anyone at any place" attitude is simply wrong.

Your unlikely to see any major change in the ability of governments, Fed, state or local, to impose what is seen as reasonable regulation. In fact one way of seeing this case is the idea that the DC law is being judged not so much on constitutionality but reasonableness.

While incorporation is certainly an issue, the tenor of the Justces' questioning appeared to assume full incorporation. Assuming that the Court decides that the Amendmment guarantees an individual right,the issue becomes the nature of that right.


If its held to be a "fundamental" right, like free speech, in that event, any law abriding that right will be subject to "srict scrutiny." Very few restrictions survive such a judicial analysis. On the other hand , if the right is held to be less than fundamental, two other standards of review may apply. They are "intermediate scrutiny", used in cases evaluating things like statutes which treat gender disparately or "ordinary scrutiny" which applies a rule of reason/ balance of the equties review to the limiting statute. Some regulation survives intermeadiate scrutiny, probably "must issue" laws with training requirements and disability for felons would pass intermediate review. Most regulation short of outright bans on ownership are likely to be upheld under ordinary scrutiny review.

It’s a dangerous position to be caviler about a right (gun ownership) because you don’t feel it effects you right now. At some point one of your rights that does effect you and that you care about will be under attack and if others say “no big deal” as you did who’s going to fight for it if we all felt that way?

I don’t smoke, never have & never will. I hate the smell of cigarettes, they stink something terrible. But I am for a person’s right to smoke and very strongly against all the anti-smoking bans being passed all across the country. It’s the principal of freedom and the right of a person to choose what he wants to do in & with his life. And my dislike of the nanny state where the government decides everything for us.



You know the bill of rights is not about the rights the government gives us. It’s about our God-given rights and tells the government that they can not infringe on them or take them away. It’s suppose to protect us from government not give the government the power to grant something our founding fathers knew were God given.

If you read the bill of rights, check out the wording. The whole bill of rights is about individual rights, not about the rights of a group like a militia.

It’s about limiting the government’s power.
But see how well that has worked out over the years…