Right...what else did it say?
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Yeah so?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
OTIS McDONALD, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
[June 28, 2010]
Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join.
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
As I posted right above, the court has evolved over time from that interpretation.
Hüsker Dü
DA
That kinda said it all right there. "not unlimited" and "to be regulated".
Multi Sport
DA
Regulated. Can't own a Bazooka, I agree.
Not unlimited. I'm ok with limiting firearm ownership to about 20.
The issue at hand is not how many firearms one could own. The issue is who may own them. A sane, law-abiding individual who is competent in the use of the firearms in his possession should face no limits to his law-abiding possession and use. The weakness we have in our gun-control policy in USA is that we have limited triage - we sort applicants for gun ownership into always yes or always no, with no place for "Maybe we should take a closer look". A short militia-like training program would benefit the country many ways, including developing competency with firearms (which was the original intent of NRA) plus weeding out those who don't know what they are doing or who should not be trusted with a deadly weapon, even if they have never committed a crime yet.
Maybe gun ownership should require one to go through training on the order of the amount of time that is spent on getting a driver's license.
Sheriff Joe
DA
P-FUNK
Sheriff Joe
DA
So, illegals should be trained as well?
Hüsker Dü
DA
You are obsessed with an actually minor problem when looking at the big picture here in America . . . but then again you have been told "they" are the problem.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Tell that to Kate.
No. Why would that be done? Are you stupid or something?
Sheriff Joe
DA
They get drivers licenses and benefits, just wondering what rights they are not entitled to that we are.
Benefits?
Multi Sport
DA
Probably not a bad idea.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Benefits.
This is where you could have written something meaningful, but it looks like you failed. Again.
Please continue.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Fuck you, how did I do?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Can't let go of what you have been led to believe is the truth even when proven otherwise can you.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You could elaborate a little bit to look less the tool and more the reasoning individual . . . or not.