Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
On Campus Carry
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1226436" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Actually, they didn't. They only declared the right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home exists in the Second Amendment. All other conceptions of a right to keep and bear arms are subject to the strict scrutiny of the Court via Due Process.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it was a step toward handing over what remains of our right to keep and bear arms to the "gungrabbers". You will see this when Nordyke makes its way up again. Nordyke hinges on the fact that Heller and McDonald consider traditional and longstanding prohibitions as Constitutional, including the prohibition of firearms in "sensitive places" such as government offices, schools, and areas where a larger than usual crowd is gathered.</p><p></p><p>Justice Thomas had it right. We needed to go back and revisit Slaughter-House. Slaughter-House (and descendant cases) effectively neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause by basically striking the "immunities" part.</p><p></p><p>If you want to read more about that, check out the <a href="http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67234" target="_blank">Nordyke thread</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In light of Heller and McDonald, I think the campus carry fight (both college and K-12) just got tougher.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1226436, member: 5151"] Actually, they didn't. They only declared the right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home exists in the Second Amendment. All other conceptions of a right to keep and bear arms are subject to the strict scrutiny of the Court via Due Process. I think it was a step toward handing over what remains of our right to keep and bear arms to the "gungrabbers". You will see this when Nordyke makes its way up again. Nordyke hinges on the fact that Heller and McDonald consider traditional and longstanding prohibitions as Constitutional, including the prohibition of firearms in "sensitive places" such as government offices, schools, and areas where a larger than usual crowd is gathered. Justice Thomas had it right. We needed to go back and revisit Slaughter-House. Slaughter-House (and descendant cases) effectively neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause by basically striking the "immunities" part. If you want to read more about that, check out the [URL="http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67234"]Nordyke thread[/URL]. In light of Heller and McDonald, I think the campus carry fight (both college and K-12) just got tougher. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
On Campus Carry
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
