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
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
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: 1290975" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Nope.</p><p></p><p>The Second Amendment protects the Right to keep and bear arms as an Immunity of a United States citizen pursuant to Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, that Right was usurped when the Supreme Court neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House cases.</p><p></p><p>Even in McDonald, the majority admitted that Slaughter-House is inherently flawed, but four of the five said that it wasn't worth revisiting. Only one Justice had the balls to do the right thing, and that was Justice Clarence Thomas. </p><p></p><p>The reason that the Court would not revisit Slaughter-House is because that would take away power from the federal government. By leaving Slaughter-House intact, the Court left all aspects of the Right to keep and bear arms subject to Due Process with the presumption that all restrictions are Constitutional until deemed otherwise by the Supreme Court.</p><p></p><p>Now, you might ask why Second Amendment groups like the NRA or GOA support the McDonald decision. It's rather simple: they require litigation (or the threat thereof) against the Second Amendment to survive. Heller and McDonald opened up a new market, since virtually any restriction other than the possession of a handgun for self-defense inside your home is wide open.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1290975, member: 5151"] Nope. The Second Amendment protects the Right to keep and bear arms as an Immunity of a United States citizen pursuant to Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, that Right was usurped when the Supreme Court neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House cases. Even in McDonald, the majority admitted that Slaughter-House is inherently flawed, but four of the five said that it wasn't worth revisiting. Only one Justice had the balls to do the right thing, and that was Justice Clarence Thomas. The reason that the Court would not revisit Slaughter-House is because that would take away power from the federal government. By leaving Slaughter-House intact, the Court left all aspects of the Right to keep and bear arms subject to Due Process with the presumption that all restrictions are Constitutional until deemed otherwise by the Supreme Court. Now, you might ask why Second Amendment groups like the NRA or GOA support the McDonald decision. It's rather simple: they require litigation (or the threat thereof) against the Second Amendment to survive. Heller and McDonald opened up a new market, since virtually any restriction other than the possession of a handgun for self-defense inside your home is wide open. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom