yes i know that but i was using his site i rarely to never use it but i was told to look it up on that site

I thought that was too funny not to post, adj, sorry!

So now that we are all quote adjusted and over ourselves.... let's get back to firepower! Pow!

Yes...they are "just amendments"

Oh..and good job on correcting your own misspells.

why is it the when people try to debate things the insults inevitably come out? spell check, etc. You people and your personal attacks is all you can throw out there. The simple fact is all the supreme court cases incolving the 2a from the foundng date to 1939 favored it as an individuals right to bear arms. Yes, the consitution can be amended, but it will not be for the 2a, guaranteed. Watch the supreme courts decision on the dc gun ban if you want more proof. The justices have already sided on individuals right, and this is 2008. Nice arguments, but precedent, and the law is in our favor. Your arguments are nothing less than thinly veiled contempt, insinuations, your opinion, generalizations, and outright name calling. The petty insults levelled by those who disagree with the postion doesn't change reality. Deal with it

Again.. Thank-you lordling... For the reference to

David Yassky amicus curiae, US v. Emerson
http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html

The paper I originally found, does not serve the pro-gun argument well at all.

You probably would have been better off citing the 5th District Court of Appeals decisions on the case.

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

This standard, at a minimum, requires that any law that
seeks to regulate the right to keep and bear arms must be
subjected to heightened scrutiny.

In other words.. It says that his rights may have been violated. While also saying that while it is a right... That the Government has a right to limit within reason. Using Miller v. US as a precedent.

Also noted

'The ruling in question is United States v. Emerson, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Emerson endorsed what the court called the "individual rights model" of the Second Amendment.

The Emerson case originally arose from state court divorce proceedings. In 1998, Dr. Timothy Emerson was ordered by a Texas judge not to threaten or harm his daughter or his estranged wife. (Emerson's ex-wife had testified that he had previously threatened to kill a friend of hers.)

A federal statute makes it a crime for a person under such an order to possess a firearm, provided that the firearm affects or has moved in interstate commerce. Shortly after the order was issued, Emerson was indicted by a federal grand jury for possessing a firearm in violation of the statute.

Emerson challenged his indictment on a number of grounds, including the Second Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the indictment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, upholding the indictment, because it found that the government had advanced a compelling reason for overriding Emerson's Second Amendment rights.

The court's result meant that it did not really have to reach the question of whether Emerson had Second Amendment rights in the first place. After all, even assuming he did, the court had found the government's interest overrode them. Nonetheless, a majority of the three-judge panel devoted the bulk of its opinion to interpreting the Second Amendment.

Because the majority did not have to reach the Second Amendment question, its analysis technically constitutes what lawyers call dicta — that is, reasoning unnecessary to the disposition of a case. Nevertheless, the majority's opinion could have a substantial impact on the future of gun control in the United States because other courts may follow its reasoning.'*

*http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html

Even if the case 'Heller v District of Colombia' is decided favorably to Heller.. It will not make all gun laws unconstitutional.


What some of you are saying is... to suggest that all gun laws are unconstitutional. I see no legal precedent that backs that claim.

If that were true and proven then it would be possible to carry side srms and hand grenades on domestic flights. Have a Howitzer mounted on your roof, a tank in your garage and any other weapon you could dream up...

Something tells me that neither the framers of the Bill of Rights or our current population and Government would be served well by that stance.

i understand you said some of you are saying

but if you read my posts

i say ----for law biding citizens---- threatening ones life is a crime (and agree they could have a possibility of suspension of the right to bear arms (and probably should)

also a convicted felon does not have said right

neither does one **diagnosed** with severe mental disorder

and i do not have a problem with those

but a law biding citizens rights should not be infringed
the only person that obides by the gun control law
is someone that would not be a threat to begin with

the convicted felon law is a convicted felon law

the mental patient law is a law regarding mental patients

gun laws regard guns and law biding citizens

now you can fight it (mental aspect) as discrimination if you wish

it is two separate issues