http://gamingtrend.com
November 25, 2014, 10:18:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: For Our Second Amendment Fans...  (Read 1664 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« on: July 07, 2008, 03:31:37 PM »

Volokh on the first post-Heller Second Amendment decision.

Fed's quick summary:

Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2008, 03:37:06 PM »

Oh noes!  What's to prevent the lie-beral congress from ratcheting down protections until the only legal firearm is a flintlock pistol?



note:  I think that'd be hilarious.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2008, 07:31:16 PM »

FWIW, it DOES seem to be an arbitrary restriction, and it's somewhat bothersome to me that the citizenry are forced to justify why an action should be allowed or an item posessed (As opposed to permissiveness being the default and placing the burden on the governing entity wishing to remove such action - ANY action - to justify such a restriction).

From theory to practice, though, and working within the confines of the complaint, why exactly is re-enactment of a WWII battle a less protected action than killing a fuzzy animal?
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2008, 02:56:17 AM »

Quote
it's somewhat bothersome to me that the citizenry are forced to justify why an action should be allowed or an item posessed (As opposed to permissiveness being the default and placing the burden on the governing entity wishing to remove such action

i didnt read the case - but this is what they went with?  they couldnt have found a way to say no machinegun without shifting it to this, huh?
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2008, 05:08:31 AM »

Quote from: Doopri on July 08, 2008, 02:56:17 AM

Quote
it's somewhat bothersome to me that the citizenry are forced to justify why an action should be allowed or an item posessed (As opposed to permissiveness being the default and placing the burden on the governing entity wishing to remove such action

i didnt read the case - but this is what they went with?  they couldnt have found a way to say no machinegun without shifting it to this, huh?

I don't think I was clear...  I'm just lamenting the fact that as per this..

Quote
Title 18, section 925(d) of the United States Code provides that certain types of firearms may be imported into the United States. Among these are firearms “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” ... [T]he ATF determined that the BD44 was not importable under section 925(d)(3) because it was not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Plaintiff challenges the ATF's decision. Plaintiff argues that the ATF's interpretation of section 925(d)(3) is arbitrary and capricious, and seeks damages for lost income resulting from his inability to sell BD44s to prospective military re-enactors....

... the burden is on a citizen to establish that a given weapon must be, "...particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." in order to be legally imported/owned.

I find that disturbing because a) the burden should be on the entity wishing to restrict an action (in this case ownership of an item) to prove it *shoudln't* be allowed,  and b) the idea that killing wee beasties is legally a great reason to have a gun, but reenacting history is not.

Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2008, 05:41:43 AM »

Why do you need a working gun to reenact history?
Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2008, 02:51:55 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on July 08, 2008, 05:41:43 AM

Why do you need a working gun to reenact history?

Because this would be silly.

Besides, why do you need a working gun to kill a deer?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 02:53:34 PM by Geezer » Logged
dbt1949
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2619


Don't tread on me


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2008, 07:28:06 AM »

Logged

Ye Olde Farte
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.072 seconds with 38 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.012s, 2q)