In the next few months the Supreme Court is about to look at some important changes in your right to hold firearms. Any real discussion on the effect of the possible affects must go back and look at the recent rulings by the court. If you have any interest at all in firearms, the ability to carry them, or to even posses them, you have to at least glance at this document. It outlines the cases that have determined your rights to even have access to any modern firearms in the last few years. It outlines the pro gun rights that we have gained in the time since From Heller to Bruen: Supreme Court Rulings That Reshaped Gun Rights - Pew Pew Tactical The court has accepted another case and will decide on it this year. This may set the limits on who may posses a firearm. It in essence it may set a limit on the so called red flag prohibitions and the use of needs to own a firearm. Do you have the right to own a firearm if the state requires you to have a "need" for one or to require you to jump thru some hoop to justify it. In some countries you have to belong to a shooting club and store your firearms in certain ways. While the case is important, I just wish that they had picked a more presentable subject for a test case. Why the Supreme Court's Gun Rights Case Could Change Who Can Own Firearms Nationwide. Supreme Court Suggests It Will Strike Down Hawaii Gun Control Law While the use of the Supreme Court may seem to be both expensive and in many cases counter productive, we in fact can no longer count on many of the lower courts or state lawmakers to make unbiased judgements on our 2 nd Amendment rights. Living in New Hampshire and about 5 miles from the Mass border, I know that you no longer have a snow flakes chance in He## of a fair decision in any court in that state on any gun case. A Boston dope dealer can carry a pistol, but if I forget and drive into the state with a truck gun, I face severe punishment and very steep lawyer fees. And as an elderly white male with "wrong" stickers on my car. I know from personal experience that I may be stopped for a routine check for firearms in the town 14 miles away in Mass. Not that obvious, but in essence, that was what was being checked for. Alcohol abuse checks render many of your rights to unlawful search and such moot.
Liberals continue to misunderstand (or just plain old NOT CARE) that the Constitution doesn't limit OUR rights. It limits what the government do, to limit our rights. I fully expect the Court to strike down the Hawaii law, and also severely curtail what the state can do with a "red flag" law. Perhaps if the Dems would just stop ignoring the mental health issues in this country that lead to so many shootings, they'd have an easier time limiting ownership of firearms by those deemed mentally unstable? Of course, they'd also have to admit that a goodly portion of their constituents are mentally unstable....
Red flag laws are so dangerous. Once down that road it is so damn easy to extend them, too easy. I am not saying that mentally unstable people should be allowed to purchase firearms. No. I am just saying we damn well need to be careful on that road. BTW We have no Red Flag laws here in Idaho... EDIT: Question: So, are transexuals considered mentally unstable? I would think so...but just curious...
we all know this won't get resolved until (and unless) the People exercise the 2A for its intended purpose....
got to laugh >>> SCOTUS just had a major decision concerning 300,000 Venezuelans lounging around the US - 8-1 vote - tooooooooooooo freaking clear that POTUS has the power to revoke emergency visa status decisions from a previous POTUS ..... only one DEI judge didn't see it because of her TDS and likely her lack of professional law practice surfaces again - being embarrassed and looking idiotic isn't a problem ......
not an argument with you, you just prompted this thought... The People did exactly that, accomplished the best possible outcome, a couple centuries ago yet look what we've done with it. There is no solution, we have not proven that man cannot govern himself, we have proven that we will not.
Good point! Of course, all other forms of government have been tried and also failed. So, unless there is a different form of government not yet tried which proves that man CAN govern himself then we have to assume that no matter what form of government, organization, structure or rule book is used, after a time, man simply WILL NOT govern himself accordingly...which in the end truly means...man cannot. He simply can't do it. We turn on the television, and we see that a Representative Republic sure as hell isn't working out much better than all the other forms of governments and costs hell'va a lot more, a waaaay lot more. So, I totally agree, there is no solution and it matters not what form of government man uses to govern for sooner or later...it all goes to $hit and the underlying problem in all of them is man himself, man's nature.
... I think we can easily infer from Dr. Frankin's response that repeated applications are sometimes necessary..
