Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

congress finds the following.... (s397)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by beerslurpy, Jul 31, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    What? Awesome!

    <snip>

    But there is more! The 14th amendment rears its head in the Purposes section!
    Guess they agree with my interpretation of the 14th amendment.
     
  2. TarpleyG

    TarpleyG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,981
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Link???
     
  3. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    beer, regarding the 14th, what other interp can there be??? :confused:
     
  4. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    The one real hawkeye goes around arguing for. You know the 1860-1910 SCOTUS interpretation of "the 14th amendment does not incorporate the bill of rights at all and isnt binding upon the states."

    Thomas.loc.gov search for "lawful commerce"
     
  5. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    beer, oh, I see.
     
  6. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    For those more in the know than I.

    What sort of basis does this provide (if any) in an attempt to change the "sporting purposes" clauses of various regs?
     
  7. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    None. The only way we are going to get rid of sporting purposes is if either:

    a) the supreme court rules that sporting purposes is an illegitimate test to subject 2nd amendment protections to

    b) congress repeals it

    This law is a good sign of things to come if we can get a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, but it isnt really a basis upon which to do anything else. But lots of congressional findings that the 2nd protects an individual right cant be a bad thing.
     
  8. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Thanks beerslurpy.

    So at best it is just something to point to in an argument for consistency and legislative leanings.

    Well, it's a start.
     
  9. thebucket

    thebucket Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Personally, I think "sporting purposes" should be: A firearm is suitable for sporting purposes if it may used in a lawful manner by the People. In other words, if there are target shooting competitions, for example, with 40mm Bofors, then the 40mm Bofors is suitable for sporting purposes. :D

    The best way, though, I think for such an interpretation to happen, is to have informal target shooting recognized by the ATF as a suitable sport to sastify "sporting purposes". If it can be plinked with, it can be owned.
     
  10. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Yeah tehbucket, but sporting purposes wasnt written into the law by you or me.

    The actual definition reads more like "suitable only for sporting purposes"- so although a Pancor Jackhammer could be used for skeet shooting, it could also be useful in self defense or combat and therefore is illegal. Ditto the Galil which could be used for hunting but obviously has features useful for combat and therefore is illegal. And so on ad infinitum. And of course, they get to decide what is a sport- sure would suck if someone like me came along and made a triathalon of "select fire rifle/combat shottie/indirect fire."

    This is definitely something we need to do away with at the earliest opporutnity. I personally think that I should be free to create whatever sports I want (including artillery and machine gun competitions) as long as all involved are consenting. It certainly doesnt pick my pocket if the neighbors decide to have novel forms of shooting competitions on their acreage. Unless the bullets are coming my direction or keeping me awake at night, I dont much care what they are doing.

    The whole idea of the government telling me what sports are legitimate and forbidding me to own other firearms reeks of socialism and tyranny in general. It has always been about using reasonable sounding pretexts to take our stuff.
     
  11. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    What, pray, do leftist extremist threats of filibusters have to do with the price of ping-pong balls in Pakistan?

    A majority is a majority‚ÄĒproviding it's willing to act like one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page