• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Well Heller will by out by Thursday...

J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:
joeroket wrote:
uncoolperson wrote:
joeroket wrote:
But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
Click to expand...
That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
Click to expand...
Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.
Click to expand...
You ever hear of a battlefield nuke? Carried and shoulder fired by a single person.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Dr. Fresh wrote:
joeroket wrote:
uncoolperson wrote:
joeroket wrote:
But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
Click to expand...
That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
Click to expand...
Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.
Click to expand...
You ever hear of a battlefield nuke? Carried and shoulder fired by a single person.
Click to expand...
Read the Federalist Papers, it says that the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to have a militarily compatible weapon. In this day and age that would be M-16, m-4, AKs, FAL, etc. So SAWs and other heavier weapons would be included. Besides has no one here never seen an M-16 with an M-40grenade launcher mounted?
 
S

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

nofoa wrote:
Need to get myself a 10/22.
Click to expand...
Like the one in the bottom of this pic? Or more vanilla? :p

2576981720_2f5e43e5d4.jpg
 
BobCav

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

Now that's a purdy pic! I have an actual Winchester Model 77 .22LR built in the late 60's. Only an 8 shot mag, but still loads of fun and super accurate!
 

Attachments

  • Winchester77.jpg
    Winchester77.jpg
    7.8 KB · Views: 202
S

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

I just KNEW you would bring out that rifle. I was making a tin can dance with that thing. A simply amazing gun. A trigger job is the next thing I am planning for mine, along with a tapco adjustable stock for LOP.

That has got to be the most awesome .22 I've ever shot.
 
Z

zakst1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
71
Location
Bremerton, Washington, USA
imported post

I can hardly stand the wait... I have been watching the news and (though most networks liberal leaning) they keep stating that the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not it is an individual right. Anyone fear the worst? I know the 2A is CLEAR AS FRICKEN DAY, but I have learned one thing that is rock solid: "Don't let anything surprize you."
 
R

rysa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
77
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

So far from what i've read (a whole22 pages) they affirm the individual right, which is good.

They do say that the licensing portion is ok, but that the chief must issue a license. :cuss:

Here's a quick quote from page 22


[align=left]Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a [font=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]pre-existing [/font]right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in [font=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]United States [/font]v. [font=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]Cruikshank[/font], 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed[/align]
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

uncoolperson wrote:
anyone able to interpret pg 58?

good, bad, or rambling?
Click to expand...
It basically say that the only firearms that are covered by the 2nd are one that are commonly used by the citizens. They basically are stating that the Federal firearms act is constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top