Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#127779 - 03/19/08 04:57 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Nishnabotna]
Dan_McI Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 844
Loc: NYC
Originally Posted By: Nishnabotna


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.

Top
#127785 - 03/19/08 06:53 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: unimogbert]
MartinFocazio Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/21/03
Posts: 2155
Loc: Bucks County PA
Originally Posted By: unimogbert


I think the biggest part of the decision to be made is whether the 2nd amendment will be "incorporated" or not. Incorporation is the concept that the rights listed in the BOR cannot be reduced by the States.


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.


Top
#127786 - 03/19/08 06:57 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: MartinFocazio]
MoBOB Offline
Veteran

Registered: 09/17/07
Posts: 1219
Loc: here
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.


Edited by MoBOB (03/19/08 06:58 PM)
_________________________
"Its not a matter of being ready as it is being prepared" -- B. E. J. Taylor

Top
#127791 - 03/19/08 07:23 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: MartinFocazio]
Hacksaw
Unregistered


Originally Posted By: martinfocazio


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.



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

Top
#127797 - 03/19/08 07:53 PM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: MartinFocazio]
sodak Offline
Addict

Registered: 03/20/05
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: martinfocazio
Originally Posted By: unimogbert


I think the biggest part of the decision to be made is whether the 2nd amendment will be "incorporated" or not. Incorporation is the concept that the rights listed in the BOR cannot be reduced by the States.


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.



Quit teasing us! I agree!!!!

Top
#127834 - 03/20/08 12:40 AM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: benjammin]
OldBaldGuy Offline
Geezer

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 5695
Loc: Former AFB in CA, recouping fr...
Apparently good ole CA is gonna try another way, they are working on making it really hard to buy handgun ammo...

link
_________________________
OBG

Top
#127836 - 03/20/08 12:52 AM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: benjammin]
Blitz Offline
Gear Junkie
Addict

Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 535
Loc: MA
Let's just all move down to Texas. We can visit Blast.

Blitz

Top
#127839 - 03/20/08 01:20 AM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Blitz]
Art_in_FL Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2432
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.

Top
#127843 - 03/20/08 01:50 AM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: unimogbert]
acropolis5 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 06/18/06
Posts: 358
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.

Top
#127850 - 03/20/08 03:30 AM Re: Landmark 2nd Amendment case pending [Re: Art_in_FL]
BobS Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 924
Loc: Toledo Ohio
Originally Posted By: Art_in_FL
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.


Itís a dangerous position to be caviler about a right (gun ownership) because you donít 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 ďno big dealĒ as you did whoís going to fight for it if we all felt that way?

I donít smoke, never have & never will. I hate the smell of cigarettes, they stink something terrible. But I am for a personís right to smoke and very strongly against all the anti-smoking bans being passed all across the country. Itís 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. Itís about our God-given rights and tells the government that they can not infringe on them or take them away. Itís 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.

Itís about limiting the governmentís power.
But see how well that has worked out over the yearsÖ
_________________________



You can run, but you'll only die tired.


Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
August
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 368 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
keril, MarcusPetz, CBlackRaven, TnSweetie, Sundiver70
5321 Registered Users
Newest Posts
Monthly reminder - tech
by TeacherRO
10:41 PM
Twenty bucks
by TeacherRO
10:40 PM
Summer Every Day Carry (EDC)
by TeacherRO
10:40 PM
Recent Signal Mirror Successes - more wanted
by hikermor
01:38 PM
Bear attacks revisited
by Phaedrus
04:28 AM
Smallest possible survival kit
by nursemike
08/06/20 06:17 PM
Mask preferences
by nursemike
08/06/20 06:05 PM
Trad methods work!!
by Ren
08/06/20 11:05 AM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.