Columbus banned assault weapons, licensed gun dealers and prohibited people from carrying concealed weapons in city parks until a state law took effect in March 2007, wiping out all local gun rules. Supporters said the state should have sole power over such issues to eliminate a patchwork of local ordinances.Isn't this exactly the reason we need federal laws that would put everyone on the same page and eliminate the "patchwork" of differing state laws we now have?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Isn't this exactly the reason we need federal laws that would put everyone on the same page and eliminate the "patchwork" of differing state laws we now have?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for it, and the overriding thought to keep in mind in formulating federal gun policy must be shall not be infringed.
+1 to Zorro, we're working on it Mike, and we'll get there faster if you bigots would open your damn minds and give us a hand.
ReplyDeleteBut we'll get there with or without you...but with you maybe somebody will read your shitty blog! So there's something even for your cowardly ex-patriot ass!
So you'd be for nationwide concealed carry with full reciprocity? Or in that case are you once again for state's rights?
ReplyDeleteWhat's missed by our gunloons is that CCW isn't protected by the 2A.
ReplyDeleteAssault weapons aren't covered by the 2A.
Oh sure, they can pretend it is--but even Fat Tony says it ain't.
"What's missed by our gunloons is that CCW isn't protected by the 2A."
ReplyDeleteWhat is missed by Jade Tool is that no one but him brought up the 2nd Amendment but him.
"Assault weapons aren't covered by the 2A."
ReplyDeleteOh that "In common use" clause is gonna bite you guys in the ass...and you'll find a new way to spin away from reality.
Per the Supremes:
ReplyDeleteHELLER
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
McDONALD
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
Read 'em and weep!
Weerd's now a lawyer. What a fantasy world he lives in.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd Beard:
ReplyDeleteOh that "In common use" clause is gonna bite you guys in the ass . . .
Indeed--with the AR-15 platform having been the biggest selling centerfire rifles in the U.S. for a while now, and with even Remington making hunting rifles based on the AR platform, it has now become impossible to credibly argue that so-called "assault weapons" are not in "common use."
Bye-bye, AWBs!
I'll drop one my my cards in the mail for you.
ReplyDeleteWill it have a picture of Picachu on it?
ReplyDeleteWhy, do you still need that one to complete your collection, Guy?
ReplyDeleteNah, But I should have gotten one of Alan Gura's cards when I was having beers with him this spring.
ReplyDeleteBTW Laci he was the one that told me the "In common use" part of the ruling was an easy in to get rid of the various state's "Assault Weapons" bans.
I'm not a lawyer, but he's far greater a lawyer than you'll ever be...not to mention your yappy little dog.
Weer'd, How many beers did you and Alan have that day, and where exactly were your guns at the time?
ReplyDeleteFWM, I believe Zorro brought up the 2nd Amendment in his first comment.
Poor little Laci, still showing he has very little grasp of Constitutional Law.
ReplyDelete"Weer'd, How many beers did you and Alan have that day, and where exactly were your guns at the time?"
ReplyDeleteAlan Gura drank on our tab all night long, and had a few. I had 3 IIRC.
This was in North Carolina, and carry was illegal. My guns were locked up in Massachusetts. If anybody was carrying that night I was unaware of it. I know Breda was wearing an empty holster in Protest to NC's stupid laws for most of the week.
There I answered your questions, why don't you answer mine about your guns?
Fair is fair.
When you were drinking with Gura--were you wearing your furry outfit?
ReplyDeleteBTW, it looked like your buddy Eunuchs_Jedi yakked all over himself. Do they charge him triple at the AYCE buffet?
Laci: “Read 'em and weep!”
ReplyDeleteBoy, you sure are one of those “glass is half full” kind of guys if you think Heller and McDonald were wins for gun control. Good for you.
http://guywithguns.blogspot.com/2010/05/nra-2010-convention-blogger-meetup-part.html
ReplyDeletePix here.
See pro-gun people have social lives...vs. you solitary lepers.
Hehe, I had a good laugh when your blog master flew all the way to Jersey and you two never even considered breaking bread.
Pro-gun people do have social lives.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, they involve other pro-gun people. So, if you like fat, white men with a variety of fears, phobias, and arrested personalities--you're golden.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteFWM, I believe Zorro brought up the 2nd Amendment in his first comment.
I suppose I did, at that, if not by name. Seems reasonable, now that it's an established point of Constitutional law that every gun law, imposed by every level of government, is subject to the Second Amendment.
I am forced to acknowledge that Jadefool and Laci the Ambulance-Chasing Dog are correct in pointing out that our current Supreme Court, having (finally) figured out what "right of the people" means, has a long way to go with regard to shall not be infringed.
The good news is that government officials who cannot be taught the difference can still be replaced, and that goes for those who hold their positions for life.
Just sayin' . . .
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteSo, if you like fat, white men with a variety of fears, phobias, and arrested personalities--you're golden.
Michael Moore is pro-gun now?
Oh, never mind. You set "fat," not "morbidly obese."
My mistake.
Actually, Michael Moore is an NRA member.
ReplyDeleteIn your defense, however, he'd probably be able to carry on a conversation as opposed to grunting.
Jadefool:
ReplyDelete. . . he'd probably be able to carry on a conversation as opposed to grunting.
The thing is, I prefer to hold my conversations with people who aren't trying to speak around a mouthful of deep-fried-Twinkie "cud."
Thanks Weer'd for answering my question. I was hoping, of course, that you'd been armed when you shared those drinks with Alan. You're the guy who pushes martinis and other exotic drinks on your gun blog. It was a natural assumption on my part.
ReplyDeleteWhen you respond like that to questions or offer substantial input to the discussion I value your participation and appreciate it. But lately, I have to tell you more often than not your comments are nothing but name calling and nastiness. I asked you in an e-mail to knock it off, now I'm repeating that request.
I've mentioned a time or two that I've already shared publicly all I intend to about my past experiences with guns. Stop asking. I imagine you think you win some kind of points by forcing me to not answer those endlessly repeated questions, which I'm not sure is the case, but I'm tired of it. I wrote an entire post about this a long time ago. Since then I can't count the number of times you've repeated the question.
In Italian we say, "basta." It means "that's enough."
About the other stuff, the name calling and gratuitous insults, I don't believe Jadegold is setting the tone for that, I think you are. If you don't agree with that too bad, it's my call.
So, knock it the fuck off. Is that clear enough?
"What's missed by our gunloons is that CCW isn't protected by the 2A."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that matters at this point. They could outlaw concealed carry tomorrow and i'd still carry, along with millions of other people.
"About the other stuff, the name calling and gratuitous insults, I don't believe Jadegold is setting the tone for that, I think you are. If you don't agree with that too bad, it's my call."
ReplyDeleteYeah, because Weer'd Beard is able to create insulting posts here on MikeB's blog, and Jade is only able to respond to those insulting posts in the comments. So, your logic makes perfect sense. Oh wait...