They're a bunch of grifting buffoons floating on top of the fudds who willfully refuse to know any better.
Right? The gun industry, the MOST tightly controlled industry that isn't nuclear power, that is consistently targeted by legislation that would straight up put it out of business (remember the microstamping bullshit? The fingerprint scan capable grips? ) somehow controls the world. LOL Wayne LaPierre who has to steal fudd money to pay for his whores and their baggage, runs the world. NOW I've heard everything.
Get your ass on 10 then 15 and head to Vegas and get another 15 and load up. You see the mindset of these folks. They are pleased as punch to support a criminal f-wit like Trump, force women to carry to term, and suppress the majority's will in every manner possible, including their transparent gerrymandering not only of election district boundaries, but now proceeding onward toward the ISL doctrine.
Ugh, sorry. I don't get out much. Seeking dramatic reward around here. Fortunately, I'm not the sole or even the greatest offender. Just a nerd with an engineering degree from UofL, a barely even ranked program. For real drama I suppose you have to have a law degree from Yale. Anyway, on the serious side of the debate, weird as it is that this opportunity presents itself in this thread, would you be willing to forego any interest in guns/gun control if the Rs and Ds could reach a compromise to make insulin freely available to everyone who would benefit from it? And free screenings too I suppose, as it is apparently frequently an undiagnosed condition.
Yeah way back in the day they provided a valuable service. All those folks are long dead though, and most of the training mechanisms are done better now by other orgs. The NRA now is just a monster wearing the NRA of the past as a skinsuit.
at least in Ohio, the CCW course had to be taught by either an OPOTA (Ohio Police Officers' Training Academy) or NRA certified instructor
Which was just their way of padding the bottom line by becoming the exclusive private provider who were not law enforcement or former law enforcement. Training should be to standard, not from authority.
Leaving aside that conditioning exercise of a right on a license is unconstitutional? If the state is going to issue a license, it provides a course for instructors that teaches them the required minimum standards and forms etc. Those instructors can then open businesses teaching the skills required and preparing people for any exams or administering same as per the course. Limiting it to ex law enforcement doesn't work, and limiting it to a single private org doesn't really work either.
my view of the second amendment is that licenses to carry concealed are not a violation if open carry is without licenses. requiring licenses to carry in any form is unconstitutional though.
Either seems an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the plain language. I understand the history involved, I just don't think technically we get there because the clause is entirely unambiguous and we only go further than the text itself if its ambiguous.
well at a federal level you are absolutely correct. prior to incorporation states certainly had the power to demand licenses and most courts agreed with that in terms of concealed carry. the incorporation is going to require the court to decide what actually infringes on Keeping and bearing
Nah see that is where it becomes incredibly simple: Post incorporation what applies against the feds applies against the states. The feds were barred from regulation of keeping and bearing arms. Ergo, shall not be infringed now also applies to the states. Anything else is simply going to involve an interest balancing test, which is not how it works.
actually at the federal level there is a tenth amendment argument that extends past keeping and bearing arms-the tenth amendment-if PROPERLY enforced-applies to arms that are not normally kept and able to be borne by citizens. It also involves actions with weapons that extends beyond KEEPING AND BEARING. so the second amendment is limited compared to the tenth. So when we apply the second to the states that do NOT have tenth amendment issue, there were perfectly justified police powers which may or MAY NOT Remain. banning weapons that are normally able to be kept and borne are laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Laws that ban the USE of firearms may well still be viable/ Laws that punish harmful use of firearms are certainly outside the scope of Keeping and bearing.
Brilliant. Not a violation, but unconstitutional. It's like a religious belief among some folks, this fiction that the US Constitution is the bedrock of the Federal Government. I suspect Lizzie Fletcher is part of this tribe of bullshit as is Ted Cruz. There are so so so many examples of generally accepted as necessary practices enforced by the Federal government that have never been circled back to keep the US Constitution evergreen that a resort to the Constitutionality of anything is of exceedingly limited worth.
you clearly misread what I said. 1) Did the state governments have the ability to ban concealed carry? Depends on their state constitution. 2) did state governments have the proper police power to demand licenses for carrying concealed? Yes if the state constitution allowed it 3)What happened after incorporation of the second through McDonald a) the state governments cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms b) thus if a state bans bearing arms -concealed and openly, that violates the second c) but if a state allows open carry without licenses but demands a license to carry concealed, I DOUBT a federal court will find a violation d) if concealed carry laws allow too much arbitrary discretion (may issue) that most likely will be struck down as well
Nope. With regard to that one isolated post, I read it correctly. You are pleased with the new judicial activism we are seeing post-McConnell court loading with FSoc judges? The courts now have power to remove access to RU486? What’s the Constitutional basis in play here, for example? You are pleased with tossing aside of RvW? If the day ever comes, will you be equally supportive of Heller getting tossed aside?
I am concerned with second amendment rights-I am extremely well versed on constitutional scholarship and law. Abortion is a red herring here. I don't think the court would be stupid enough to toss Heller aside unless it is to ignore the dicta Scalia put in it that was designed to keep an erratic Kennedy on board after Stevens and Breyer told Kennedy that Scalia wanted to scrap the gun control act of 68 and lots of state gun laws. I know this is true-at least three of Scalia's law clerks were close friends at Yale and one was in my district in the DOJ
You Sir have asserted yourself to be an authority on Constitutional Law, whatever that is exactly, I am not well-versed with. You've dismissed my query about abortion as a red herring with respect to Constitutional Law, but it is not a red herring simply because you prefer to focus on 2a concerns. Perhaps off topic, but not a red herring. I don't do that sort of crap, not intentionally anyway. Although I will attempt to set logic "traps" as required to make what I consider to be valid and instructional affirmations of my point of view. Perhaps I've engaged in these tactics with you in this thread. I am still curious to see your written response to my question regarding what I interpret is your assertion that it is within the original intent of the Constitution that small arms provide the citizens of the nation with recourse to overthrow the government. To be clear and consistent, I acknowledge that small arms do provide a certain ability to defend one's self, friends and family from those that would do them harm by force. However, this is not my question. My question to you, given that you've studied law at one of the most prestigious universities in the US with a focus on, apparently, Constitutional Law, whether or not you might offer any supporting references to prove that in the approximate quarter century at the end of the 18th century, or to be more clear, 1775-1800, there are any links to establish that guys like Hamilton and Madison harbored the slightest interest in securing the right of folks to bear arms against their baby, the freshly minted federal republic of the United States. You've proven my point unintentionally by-the-way revealing these behind the scenes maneuvering's of the Scotus. Rule of law indeed. Opinions, money, power and influence shrouded in secrecy seems to me to explain the way the world works at least as equally well. Regardless, you've asserted that the decision and precedent set by Heller included some concession to gain the vote of Kennedy, the details of which are irrelevant to my point: arguments regarding constitutionality are nothing more than bullshit appeals to authority - and you damn well know it.
so why don't you tell us where the federal government was given any proper power at the time the bill of rights was enacted or prior, to regulate privately owned firearms
which is a violation of the Tenth amendment. The federal government coerced states to do that-there was never really a national law IIRC
