98% say yes ! Yippee :celebrate
I just hope the Supreme court agrees.
Imagine there is no gun bans, no foolish liberal ideology to die for (or get killed because of) and no Million MOM MARCHES too, imagine all the people carrying guns every where they go..... ooohwho
Imagine all the people that will not be killed by thugs.
Imagine the DC, New York, Wisconsin and Illinois crime rates dropping overnight !
Imagine the an even higher pitched whine in Sarah Brady's voice.
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
The Supreme court can keep the matter simple.
Question "Can the DC government make it illegal for a resident of DC to have a loaded firerm in their home?"
The short answer in NO, period.
Case closed.
I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.Yes, Supreme Court Rulings affect every state. Whether this includes D.C. is in question since it is a federal enclave. I believe they narrowed the scope of the ruling to be " Does the Second Amendment bar an individual not affiliated with the official state militia from keeping a functional firearm in their home" or some such.
The only problem with this that I have is the term "official state militia".
Washington D.C. doesn't have a state militia. It's not a state.
I have a feeling that they will rule in the gun owner's favor. To do otherwise would open a serious can of worms. It would mean you have no rights unless you are part of an "official militia". This would cause pandemonium.
Although, this could potentially open a can of worms the other way because it removes the obscurity of individual vs. collective that the term "militia" implies.
If it does this, it recognizes that an individual's right CANNOT BE INFRINGED!
Then how can they regulate whether states such as Illinois permit open carry if an individual's right can't be infringed upon?
I can't wait to see the outcome. Now this is exciting!
I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.
Well Said, Supreme court rulings effect every State. The Constitution can't be narrowed to DC. If the DC ban is ruled unconstitutional all bans are. It will be the beginning of the end for gun control. I believe the current court will resolve the issue once and for all in the favor of all citizens.
But, hey, we allow you to own one as the law requires. You just have to pay us ten thousand dollars, not keep the firearm and ammunition in the same building, and have the barrel filled in with lead. But you can own it now.
But as a matter of Wisconsin's Constitution.Here a resident of a state has obtained a ruling that a ban on carrying firearms is unconstitutional (and he isn't otherwise a criminal).
More directly, in the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894)that the Second Amendment was one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that are not applied to the states via the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.Superlite27 wrote:I do not believe this case will affect state regulation of firearms - the "incorporation" issue cannot be reached on the facts here.Yes, Supreme Court Rulings affect every state. Whether this includes D.C. is in question since it is a federal enclave. I believe they narrowed the scope of the ruling to be " Does the Second Amendment bar an individual not affiliated with the official state militia from keeping a functional firearm in their home" or some such.
The only problem with this that I have is the term "official state militia".
Washington D.C. doesn't have a state militia. It's not a state.
I have a feeling that they will rule in the gun owner's favor. To do otherwise would open a serious can of worms. It would mean you have no rights unless you are part of an "official militia". This would cause pandemonium.
Although, this could potentially open a can of worms the other way because it removes the obscurity of individual vs. collective that the term "militia" implies.
If it does this, it recognizes that an individual's right CANNOT BE INFRINGED!
Then how can they regulate whether states such as Illinois permit open carry if an individual's right can't be infringed upon?
I can't wait to see the outcome. Now this is exciting!
I stand on my statement. And I think others agree with my position. I have read 100s of of SC cases and 100s of appeal court cases. I said "The short answer is NO..."The Supreme court can keep the matter simple.
Question "Can the DC government make it illegal for a resident of DC to have a loaded firerm in their home?"
The short answer is NO, period.
Case closed.