"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools." -
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/26/pelosi-says-dc-should-continue-gun-regulation/

----

There are going to be so many fights now in the federal and district courts because of this ruling. There are many states and cities that have similiar laws as the DC handgun ban. This is going to be fun to watch.

i remember someone saying once, that "to blame guns for murders is like an overwieght person blaming their obesity on silverware". I really liked that point. To be honest i really don't see where the supreme court has the right to overrule any constitutional rights (providing that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law has been broken). So i guess my point is that it should have never come down to this. But i suppose now people have more to work with against government regulation.

there is not much that is a presidential decision

including but not limited to any law on the books
and his only option on laws pending is to veto them when they come to his desk

frankly obama would sign gun ban legislation and per this endorsement of ruling mccain would veto it

enough to rule obama from having any chance of getting votes from a lot of voters that support the constitution

mccain knew how to play the situation obama did not so if he cant play this situation how good will he be at world political situations (something to think about)

I'm all for the 2nd amendment and people being able to own a gun to protect themselves. But I just have a bad feeling about this. I see some as using this as a way out to be able to have a gun, not to protect themselves, but to commit crimes. I pray I am completely wrong.

this does not change the law in the majority of the country

it only says that gun ownership can not be banned

does not abolish most gun regulation now on the books

and besides if they want a gun to commit crimes chances are they will not care about breaking the law to get one

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

This paragraph is going to make an interesting argument for the right to own Automatic weapons of any and all calibers.

exactly right

if ya can afford a tank you should be able to have one

but of course all the top secrete stuff would be left out

The two paragraphs before that one state another interesting interpretation!


Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
were not specifically designed for military use and were
not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s
legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Arms as determined for both offence and defence???
Interesting!!!

I want a Cobra helicopter!
Complete with 20mm canons and TOW missels!

I wonder how much that will cost me?

no idea but can i be on the crew

lol

they will make the technology classified thus not available thus rendering it ineffective

Sure!!

My Momma brought me up to share my toys!!

You have to buy the gas though!!

I thought James Madison wrote the Constitution

Sorry, didn't mean to do the old "double tap," will take my punishment and stand in the corner.

Thats okay!

I consider it a combined effort but didnt want to mention all the Founding Fathers!
I guess I should have said them all, but instead just listed the last two in line!
No cutting in line!

ok but you gotta buy the aviation fuel

Technicality!

I want a 50 Caliber machine gun too!!
I won a lot of awards with that baby!

Technicality it is always the Technicality you know that

and i want the rocket launcher