TexasCHLforum.com

AEA wrote:Somebody needs to send that letter to FOX news and highlight the following as being in defiance of the SCOTUS Opinion:

a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.

Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.

With regard to the latter statement, wrong-headed though it may be, it is explicitely stated as nothing more than an "opinion". The Heller decision did not strip the author of the right to voice just such an opinion.

Mike1951 wrote:As I recall, the NRA didn't support the Heller case because they thought it was not the right vehicle.

Many of the responses I've read since the decision seem to convey that this case was too narrow.

Couldn't the NRA have been right?

They didn't support it because they were afraid of losing.
In fairness the NRA conceded and did present arguements to the Supreme Court, after their attempted sabotage of the Lawsuit had failed early on. Robert Levy was the architect of this Law suit not Joaquin Jackson's

It is worth remembering on this 4th of July that we as nation exist only because some patriots were not afraid to step forward for what is right and were determined not to take no as an answer.

DParker wrote:With regard to the latter statement, wrong-headed though it may be, it is explicitely stated as nothing more than an "opinion". The Heller decision did not strip the author of the right to voice just such an opinion.

Which is exactly why the First Amendment should always have the same "reasonable restrictions" as the Second.

KD5NRH wrote:Which is exactly why the First Amendment should always have the same "reasonable restrictions" as the Second.

It does. Well, not "the same" restrictions, but restrictions that are recognized based on the same legal theory.

DParker wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:Which is exactly why the First Amendment should always have the same "reasonable restrictions" as the Second.

It does. Well, not "the same" restrictions, but restrictions that are recognized based on the same legal theory.

Then why aren't psychologically unsound people prohibited from speaking?

KD5NRH wrote:Then why aren't psychologically unsound people prohibited from speaking?

Because the state cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in such prohibitions. It can, however, demonstrate a compelling interest (public safety) in prohibiting you from yelling "fire" in crowded theater, "I have a bomb" in an airline terminal, etc.

KD5NRH wrote:

DParker wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:Which is exactly why the First Amendment should always have the same "reasonable restrictions" as the Second.

It does. Well, not "the same" restrictions, but restrictions that are recognized based on the same legal theory.

Then why aren't psychologically unsound people prohibited from speaking?

What?? and wipe out politics altogether???

The local paper's position on the Second Amendment is the reason I have been writing to my representatives to support the law that would stop the press from protecting criminals from prosecution. They should have to testify as witnesses just like anyone else.

You have to wonder at the true motives behind an organization that wants to protect criminals from prosecution while working to disarm crime victims.

Bart wrote:The local paper's position on the Second Amendment is the reason I have been writing to my representatives to support the law that would stop the press from protecting criminals from prosecution. They should have to testify as witnesses just like anyone else.

You have to wonder at the true motives behind an organization that wants to protect criminals from prosecution while working to disarm crime victims.

its all about what sells