Here's an interesting one for y'all to discuss...

[mouse]

I wonder how many of us would still be alive if this forum was a live event and we all had Guns.

[cantthinkofanything]

I wonder how many of us would still be alive if this forum was a live event and we all had Guns.

They've actually run this experiment.

[z0sa]

who's Mr. Pink (and why do they have to be pink)?

[Mr.Kotter]

[ElNono]

Actually my big objection was the blanket assumption that you could limit a cons utional right to the home. If you can do that, why can't you say practicing religion in your home is fine but you can't do it in public at a church?

I don't think there's anything necessarily precluding the judge from interpreting as he see fits. I mean, precedent always plays a role in decisions like this but only in a advisory capacity. Ultimately, that's the reason there's appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, in order to revise some of these interpretations and set them straight.

[Blake]

My opinion?

If the second amendment rights don't extend pas the home, what OTHER cons utional rights are also limited by this framework? I'm no legal scholar but this ruling seems to make no sense.

it's not an uncommon ruling of late

Now, the National Rifle Assn. is asking the high court to take up the issue this fall and "correct the widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment's scope does not extend beyond the home."

Stephen Halbrook, an NRA lawyer, said "some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further" than saying there is a right to have a gun at home.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the trend and called the high court's rulings a "hollow victory" for gun enthusiasts. "The gun lobby has tried to expand [the 2nd Amendment] into a broad right to carry any type of gun anywhere. And they have been almost unanimously rejected by the courts," said Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action. He conceded, however, that "this battle is far from over."

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the 2nd Amendment shows it "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to "carry any weapon in any manner," and that bans on "carrying concealed weapons were lawful" in the 19th century.

...........

State judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have also ruled recently that there is no cons utional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defense. And in Virginia, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington's Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.



.....

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug...-guns-20110827

[Blake]

is bull . are 18 year olds adults or what?

I can see not letting em have a gun until they're of age to drink as well, but it sucks for the 18 year old. They have all of the liability but few of the attached privileges and prerogatives. between the ages of 18 and 21 it's like one inhabits a slightly defective state of adulthood.

Why is it this way?

Because insurance companies and law enforcement, continually in the ears of public officials, say its best for us. That's bull. Either extend childhood to age 21, or confer total adulthood at 18. training wheels for adulthood sucks.

especially considering we train 18 year olds to use guns before sending them off to war.

[ElNono]

I would add that it doesn't help that the 2nd Amendment wording is so vague...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[boutons_deux]

18th "well regulated militia" now means, 21st century, that any private gun dealer can sell to anybody and nobody regulates anything. "strict constructionism/original intent" my ass.

[Winehole23]

especially considering we train 18 year olds to use guns before sending them off to war.

I've no problem with training as a requirement.

[CosmicCowboy]

I've no problem with training as a requirement.

That's the point of the concealed carry training.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur that the wording of the second amendment is vague and so is open to interpretation and ruling.

[mouse]

They've actually run this experiment.

/thread

[Wild Cobra]

My opinion?

If the second amendment rights don't extend pas the home, what OTHER cons utional rights are also limited by this framework? I'm no legal scholar but this ruling seems to make no sense.

I don't see a problem with age appropriate legislation. It's already accepted in so many other areas of law.

[mouse]