> tBone wrote:
> No it means we have patently unconstitutional laws on
the books.
>
The best legal minds in the country have been looking at
this for
decades and we've never come to a conclusion. Why?
Because, IMO, the
constitution is, at best, unclear about your arms rights.
The bottom line is if you'd like to be able to unambiguously
and
constitutionally own guns you're going to have to get an
amendment
passed. But if you tried to do that, then you'd have to
explicitly
call out all the regulations (automatic weapons, armor
piecing
bullets, rocket launchers, etc).
And that's exactly why SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this yet, and
probably
still won't.
If they're smart.
Alternatively they can try to rule on it. If they do that
they'll
force the next court to ban guns entirely. Which will force
the next
court to un-ban them.
Solution? LEAVE. IT. UP. TO. THE. STATES.
It's amazing how often that 232 year old idea comes up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256807
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5
|
