You should really get out and see more of the country.

i thought that if it was a federal law or a federal ruling that each state was bound by it? that they could add to but not take away rights? if they dont have to abide by the SC ruling why would they even bother with the SC anyway?

I thought Federal Law supercedes any State laws?

Why won't NJ have to abide by the Supreme Court ruling? Why bother having a SC then?

Carry permits are almost the same here in NYC. The police department will never grant a carry permit unless you show an extraordinary need regarding the danger of imminent physical harm which is (extremely difficult to show and an extremely high hurdle to overcome. Not for some celebrities it seems, and that has been a long time complaint.

Business owners with clean records who deal with large amounts of cash can apply and obtain carry permits. There are qualifications and restrictions to that as well and it is technically not a license to full time carry.

People in the security industry with clean records can also get carry permits, but there are also restrictions involved.

Citizens here can apply and receive a rifle and shotgun permit. They don't make it particularly easy, but people can get a permit.

oh & since others are doing it i'll be a lemming too & post mine, just got it recently =)

Supreme Court rulings don't have to apply to the states and the entire nation. If their intention was such, they would have stated that fact.

This ruling applies only to this particular case and federal law and the federal government.

For Supreme Court rulings such as this to apply to all states and the entire nation, they would have had to specifically state that and make the case for such as far as the 14th Amendment was concerned.

The court intentionally kept this decision narrow. It is not the "landmark decision" some are claiming.

Some pro-gun groups will definitely cite this decision in future legal arguments for years to come. But in reality, it means little as far as other cases or future cases are concerned.

This decision was only the first rung on the ladder of Second Amendment individual rights to firearms.

Because the decision was narrow, it can very easily be taken away. I think that fact is being lost with some people and groups today.

Thank you for the explanation NY.

I think the same thing, a 5-4 vote, albeit is a 2A victory, it is by no means a big decision. A stiff breeze could change the voting to the other side.

S.

That's true.

Consider this scenario......

The city of Washington D.C. now writes another law regarding handguns and firearms. It may be different than the previous law, but creates extreme hurdles that almost all honest law abiding citizens cannot overcome in regards to owning a handgun... or any firearm for that matter.

A new legal challenge is brought forth regarding the new law. That legal challenge makes it all the way to a near future Supreme Court where a President Obama has already made one, maybe two SCOTUS appointments to the bench.

That court could very easily rule against the individual right to own firearms and also within their decision apply the "incorporation" principle which would make their decision binding on all states and governments throughout the country. Therefore removing and eliminating any individual right to own firearms all across the land.... and that case would become a "landmark decision".

The current Heller case can be easily overlooked and thrown out the window because of it's narrow scope and the fact that it is not precedent and the legal principle known as "Stare Decisis" doesn't apply. Not that precedent matters to left wing judges, but the current Supreme Court clearly let an opportunity pass by. They refused to "settle" the issue as far as the constitution and the states are concerned.

What is that - Looks lovely?

My bro in law wants the Glock 23 back he sold me soon, as he only sold it to me because he needed the money desperately. So I need something compact like that to replace her.

its a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm compac. havent shot it yet as i picked it up on wednesday. there's no gun ranges down here cept for the one on base & they dip out on fridays at 9 or 10 =p. it feels rock solid & everyone i've talked to has said its an awesome pistol. haven't met anyone that has shot one that doesnt like it. having a pretty hard time trying to find an attachment with a light + laser on it though, any thoughts?

I've been reading the dissent this morning and one thing seems to pop out. Some of the state constitutions he cites as indicating the second ammendment is referring to "the people" as a collective, require that the state provide arms and training to the people and that those individual who do not wish to comply must pay a fee. Is that kind of the basis behind the civilian marksmanship program? Surely it wasn't just a way to get rid of surplus weapons.

Name one. :rolleyes:

The NRA has already filed suit against Chicago, and SF for their bans.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=11210

Mayor Daley is pissed. He knows his ban is doomed. It is just a matter of time.

The ban here is worthless. Nothing will keep guns out of the gangbangers hands.....

Exactly bpc. It is worthless, as all gun bans are. Only the criminals have the guns.

But one thing that is working in our favor is their interpretation of the wording of the 2A. From what I've read (and I'm only 15 or so pages into the full text), they're pretty much bitch-slapping the dissenting opinion and judges with the way they've written it.

As a quoted precedent, it's going to present some definite hurdles for those opposing the 2A to get it back to the SCOTUS. I don't think anyone will be able to successfully argue that it's not an individual right - what they will argue is the level of hurdle that can be put in place and who they can restrict.

I agree - it's not as landmark, but it's a pretty solid victory, if narrow in scope.

habeus corpus?

Warrantless wiretapping and other surveillance of US citizens?

It's the liberals and groups like the ACLU (that's right... I said it) that will eventually correct these injustices.

Glad I live in a "shall issue" state! Ever wonder why you never hear of a case of "Road Rage" in Texas?

Add to that the fact that Texas reverted to the "Castle Doctrine" last Sept. and included personal vehicles along with you're place of business... no more "Duty to Retreat"!

Here's my addition to the "gun porn" files.


By rntknives , shot with hp photosmart 733 at 2008-06-28


By rntknives , shot with hp photosmart 733 at 2008-06-28

Jeff!