« 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: Zimbler0 in BAF | Recommend this post (2)
Fri, 09 Mar 18 12:33 AM | 17 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter
Msg. 01389 of 02430
(This msg. is a reply to 01388 by zzstar)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

>>>
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
>>>


ZZ,
What you posted - re-quoted here - says that the Supreme Court
has ruled that the 2nd Amendment 'Protects an Individuals
right . . .

Which right ?

>>>
protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes,
>>>

It then goes on to say :

>>>
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.
>>>

To try and put that in English, it says that the DC handgun ban
was a violation and the Supreme Court struck it down.

Why you can not understand this . . . .

Zim.


- - - - -
View Replies (3) »



» 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 12:17 AM
Msg. 01388 of 02430

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.

Stupid.

What you posted does not exist in that link. What I posted is copy/pasted from it, you lying sack of shit.

There is no “carry weapon” mention, and no such right exists.


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