It doesn't end at background checks
And it never will.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/11/05/gun-safety-advocates-deliver-post-i-594-message-were-not-done/
Champions of Initiative 594, basking in its landslide victory, delivered a post-election message on Wednesday: We’re not done yet.
The Center for Gun Responsibility promised to bring “a robust legislative agenda” to Olympia come January. ”Yesterday’s victory is the beginning, the beginning of a movement to curb gun violence,” said the Rev. Sandy Brown, a retired Methodist minister who chairs the group.
“Our first work is with the Legislature,” Brown added.
These people will never be happy. This is why I will always reject gun control.
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted_L._Ritter
Also in 1936, the Colorado AG used that decision to defend a CO law that non citizens could not possess firearms (which had more to do with hunting privileges than public safety)
Should the issue be regulation for regulation sake, culture war, or results both sides want? Which of the three is the main reason for you? Most people is actually culture. Gun laws are not really "in response to" anything. They are often pre written (Feinstien's latest AWB took 18 months for her staff to put together) Personally, I'm a strong believer in results. If there are no results, the restriction shouldn't exist.
There is scant to no evidence that lower murder rates have anything to do with firearms regulation. Anyone can cherry pick a few countries and claim whatever (even though the murder rates were the same with they passed the laws). Yes, if one compares the US with Western Europe you get one result (never mind that the states with higher murder rates have stricter gun laws than much of Europe). But if you compare English speaking countries in the Western Hemisphere, "awash in guns" and "lax gun laws" US and Canada are much safer than those with stricter laws.
was a collective right for 200 years. Even in the early years there was a law in Boston that fire arms and powder were not allowed to be store or kept in the home. No federal law overturned that. In the old west firearms had to be surrendered when you came in certain towns. No federal court overturned that. While your examples only show state courts, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Even when this court changed it, some what, Scalia, in his majority report stated that local government could still pass laws that restrict firearms.
You guys can say I'm wrong until the cows come home until you can show different. Just because the NRA dropped the first clause of the 2nd Amendment when they carved it on their building, it still remains and the next court or some other one in the future can return it to the way it was for over 200 years in federal courts.
syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote
Scalia)
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
That makes it legal under this ruling to limit magazine size, where firearms may be prohibited and the background of anyone that wishes to purchase a firearm. All of these would most likely seem like reasonable restriction to a majority of Americans. The vote in Washington state indicates this.
The reasoning that Scalia uses in the rest of his brief about the individual right is the first time the SC has ever stated this position. That'd be at least for 200 years. As with most activist decisions, they can be and are often overturned by later courts. I see many of this courts ruling being overturned at a later date,i.e. Citizen United. Thank god.
Yeah, thats it.
I tend not to shoot where a chance of the round leaving the property is any real possibility. Care to deride me more for being responsible?
In a country of 300 million. Color me shocked.
I guess everyone is responsible, right?
Rather than just those who make bad choices, being responsible for bad choices.
