Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: not being issued a weapon until you pass a class and demonstrate that you're qualified to shoot it...

By: micro in BAF | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 09 Mar 18 9:06 PM | 39 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter 		Msg. 01400 of 06530
(This msg. is a reply to 01394 by zzstar)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

ZZ

Could you please explain to me what you mean that we are talking "around the ruling". I really do not understand what you mean by that. And perhaps that is part of the problem...

Reading the ruling myself, it states:
"The second amendment protects an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT to possess (own), a firearm "UNCONNECTED with service in a militia" for TRADITIONALLY LAWFUL PURPOSES.

IN other words, no military firearms but as long as you uphold and obey the laws you are entitled to have a firearm for LAWFUL purposes 

JUST NOT A MILITARY FULL AUTO ASSAULT RIFLE like a machine gun, or M-16 or others that perform the same way.

The ruling goes on to say that "The District of COlumbia's rules they imposed on citizens requiring them to have thier lawfully owned rifles and shotguns to be unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" was a violation of the GUARANTEES of the SECOND AMENDMENT and therefore is un-enforcible. The HANDGUN BAN was also ruled to be in violation of the second amendment.

SO, knowing that private citizens are not legally allowed to have FULL AUTO military weapons, but are allowed to have semi-auto rifles, shotguns, handguns, where is the problem ???

That is what is occurring right now. EVERYONE who purchases LEGALLY a firearm is supposed to go through a background check with the information furnished by the FBI. That is how it works.

Don't worry about the future. You nor I nor anyone else is a fortune teller and you may find later that just the opposite could and likely would happen.

SO, I am at a loss of understanding of what are you saying that I missed by this decision????

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of Heller, not the gun grabbers from the District of Columbia, and upheld a citizen's right to own, possess firearms that are not MILITARY weapons...

AN AR-15 IS NOT a military weapon.... NOT EVEN CLOSE..

THAT I believe is where the anti-gun folks fall short. They do not do their own research as to exactly WHAT an AR-15 really is , how it operates, and compare its FUNCTION to that of other semi-automatic rifles that ALSO are NOT military grade weapons and rifles....

An AR is not a full auto rifle.

Again, if you could please explain exactly what we are missing from this ruling that would be great.

Thanks in advance!


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: not being issued a weapon until you pass a class and demonstrate that you're qualified to shoot it...
By: zzstar in BAF
Fri, 09 Mar 18 6:49 PM 		Msg. 01394 of 06530

You guys are talking around the rulng:

“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200Cool, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense WITHIN THE HOME, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that GUNS AND GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REGULATED.“

It is clear what it says and means. For now.

For later, a 5-4 decision can go the other way and that right can be reconnected to organized militia, and no gun even in your home. No individual right to have a gun.

« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next