user
Accomplished Advocate
So you are saying that carrying to the post office is "technically" legal?
That's my opinion, assuming that "carrying" means lawfully carrying as defined by the state you're in.
So you are saying that carrying to the post office is "technically" legal?
:uhoh:
Still not sure how it makes sense in the first place.
It's not even like the post office or The Department of XXXXX makes its own rules to get around, "Congress shall make no law..."
or how preemption doesn't apply to the DGIF.
Question of clarification:That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".
That's absolutely true Sidestreet, but I expect things would get a little confusing if you were married to Hillary.:lol:
Question of clarification:
In Heller, the majority opinion states on Page 54:
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.26
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Does that not in fact mean that they are not considering the Constitutionality of these restrictions, but for the purpose of this case, are merely assuming them to be OK?
I know the antis have taken that one paragraph as a huge victory, but I don't see that it means what they think it means...
TFred
That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".