Starlifter wrote on 01/26/13 at 13:55:57:


For one, fully automatic weapons (machine guns), RPGs, AA guns, grenades, missiles, etc. are all ready tightly regulated by the National Firearms Act and NOT readily available.

My AR15 is a semi auto rifle and IS NOT a battle rifle, it also has plenty of sporting uses: competitions, hunting, home defense. Get your facts straight and read all of the current laws, National Firearms Act of 1935, Gun Control Act of 1968. Firearms, NFA weapons, etc are all ready well regulated. And as far as a battle ready rifle, I guess you would like to see everyone turn in their bolt action rifles too since they are all based off of military issued rifles. The funny thing is most (if not all) hunting rifles are way more powerful than the AR is.

Jerry, as you are an attorney, I would very much like to hear your opinion on this volatile gun issue.

Star -

My views as an attorney aren't worth a whole lot.  I'm neither a Constitutional lawyer nor scholar of the subject.  Frankly, Con Law was one of my most disliked course in law school - the Supreme Court is all over the place from one generation to the next.
Take segregated schools for example.  In the late 1800s, spearate was OK so long as the physical facilities were "equal".  In 1954, the Court said that separate is inherently unequal.  I don't disagree with that, but I use it as an example of how the Court shifts from time to time.

I'm not sure that the 2nd amendment protects much.  As I said in a lengthy, earlier post, I think the Framers were talking about people being armed to defend themselves against a tyrannical gov't.  Since the new republic ( not a democracy, by the way ) was totally untried, nobody really knew if one bad gov't might just be being replaced by another, and perhaps the citizenry needed to be ready to revolt again.

But that was in an era when the only difference in armament between armies and common folks was that armies had cannons.  Yet, cannon were fairly small, easily mobile behind a team of horses, and could be stolen from the army and used by the revolters.  Basically, both armies and common folks had muzzle loading rifles and primitive pistols.  So, making sure that Farmer Jones had a musket put him on equal footing with a soldier.

Obviously, today is much different - we, the people, don't have RPGs, tanks, fighter jets, and on and on.  So trying to say that the 2nd amendment assures me the ability to arm myself against a tyrannical gov't just doesn't hold water anymore.

But, was that the purpose of the 2nd amendment?  No one realy knows 230 some years later.  That's why I dislike constitutional law as a subject - nothing is clear, nothing is fixed in time.  You can make a valid argument that covers many different course of action, or many different theories of what the words mean.

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 01/29/13 at 06:37:28:

Don't worry...  I think Constitutional law is one of the most disliked subjects in Washington as well...

On second thought, worry.

Starlifter wrote on 01/29/13 at 17:47:14:

This is the second time you have said that, and the second time I have refuted it.  People do, and we know it, and we will not let them.  What ever that takes.

And you still have not apologized for the NRA terrorist comment, or found some pictures to refute mine.

Just standing on a chair and shouting at the top of your lungs does not make you right.  It makes you 6.

New York made a map of where every gun owner lived signified by a orange dot. Texas decided to follow suit except the whole state was colored orange. Except fur their duh,duh, dud, govenor you gotta love em.

As per the NRA we just need to enforce all the laws on the books ... as in get rid of the loopholes and enforce it ? I guess not.

Cool.
Srinath.