Search results for query: *

Ideally, this question would be decided by suing for injunctive relief, just like in Heller, rather than via criminal prosecution.

18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) says: Or simply put, it says that a non-immigrant alien can't "possess" or "receive" a firearm. Both terms seem to denote ownership or unsupervised control of the firearm, so simply shooting a gun under its owner's direct supervision might be in compliance with the...

But that's beside the point. The law says that they are exempt if either they are primarily in the explosives business or they have a permit under section 842. If they have the permit, then they're exempt, even if their primary business isn't fireworks.

I believe ants is correct on this point. The Florida legislature is probably going to need to revise the statute. E.g., it can add the red text below to the statute to make Disney non-exempt:

Personally, I'd get a gun ready, then call 911 and wait upstairs until the police come. If the intruders attempt to come upstairs, I'd shoot, but otherwise I won't attempt to clear the house, as I'd consider it just too risky without backup.

But the ACLU doesn't support them AFAIK; it only supports their RIGHT to freedom of speech. And I applaud them for doing so. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -- attributed to Voltaire

Lol wut? A court cannot "repeal" a law -- it can find a purported law to be unconstitutional and therefore not a law at all, but that is not a "repeal" of the law.

The idea isn't that the states had authority to infringe the right to arms. Rather, the idea is that the states' own constitutions were supposed to safeguard the rights of the people of those states. In other words, the issue isn't "may states infringe the right?"; instead, it is "who has...

lol wut? A bill of attainder is an act of the legislature that declares that a specific person is guilty of a crime, without the benefit of a trial.

There is no disagreement about the fact that the national Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The question is: Whom does the Second Amendment prohibit from infringing the right to arms? The amendment itself uses the passive voice ("[it] shall not be infringed"), so it doesn't...

The Second Amendment, like all the other provisions in the Bill of Rights, originally limited the power of only the federal government. This is explicit in the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), but it is implicit in the Second and other amendments. Today, it's obvious that...

The First Amendment was incorporated against the states in the 1920s. The 1800s cases are not controlling anymore.

The Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller [pdf] mentioned, in passing, that concealed-carry restrictions likely do not infringe the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, it notably said nothing about the open carrying of a firearm. If the right referred to by the Second Amendment...

We might actually be able to have our cake and eat it too. E.g., Justice Scalia writes the majority opinion, in which 4 other Justices join in whole, and in which 2 other Justices join only in part.

:mad: I hope we get a better test case than this. E.g., someone convicted of some minor, nonviolent felony years ago, but who is now a model citizen.

Not true, they routinely support the right of private actors (as opposed to those who act under authority of government) to freely practice their religion. For example, the ACLU fought for the right of a Christian minister to perform baptisms in a public park.

I actually won't be surprised if the nat'l ACLU changes its position and adopts an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment after DC v. Heller is officially decided in late June. The ACLU isn't composed entirely of anti-gun liberals. There is also a contingent of pro-RKBA...

Huh? IIRC, the ACLU didn't file a brief for either side in DC v. Heller. http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

I'm not sure I agree. Remember that Justice Alito, in his former position on a circuit court of appeals, said in Rybar that the current machine-gun bas is an unconstitutional overreaching of Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. I don't think the Court will allow MGs...

I see the point raised by several people that we should go after lower-hanging fruit first (e.g., incorporation against the states, carrying outside the home, etc.), and I agree with this. However, it might be still be good to be prepared to bring a MG case. We certainly don't want a...