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
"Supreme" Court.........2A issue
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: 2402930" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>This is why the NRA dropped the P/I argument and put forth a Due Process argument. Due Process requires narrow rulings on each individual subject matter and guarantees a need for groups like the NRA in court. P/I would have largely eliminated that need.</p><p></p><p><em>Heller</em> and <em>McDonald</em> specifically only addressed the <em>possession</em> of <em>a working firearm</em> only <em>within the home</em> only <em>for the purpose of self defense</em>. It did not address the use of that firearm. It did not address whether that firearm must be stored securely. It did not address whether you could have a firearm on your person within your home. It did not address anything outside of the home. The Court specifically said that all "longstanding prohibitions" are to be considered Constitutional until determined otherwise by the Supreme Court, which is the very spirit of "Due Process".</p><p></p><p>Seeking incorporation through Due Process was the same as saying "we want to make sure each detail regarding this Amendment can be legally determined on a case-by-case basis". Rather than asserting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right and therefore a privilege and immunity of being a United States Citizen, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was demoted to the status of a "gift" from the government in the form of an enumerated right of the people with the extent of coverage subject to determination by the Supreme Court in each individual case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 2402930, member: 5151"] This is why the NRA dropped the P/I argument and put forth a Due Process argument. Due Process requires narrow rulings on each individual subject matter and guarantees a need for groups like the NRA in court. P/I would have largely eliminated that need. [I]Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald[/I] specifically only addressed the [I]possession[/I] of [I]a working firearm[/I] only [I]within the home[/I] only [I]for the purpose of self defense[/I]. It did not address the use of that firearm. It did not address whether that firearm must be stored securely. It did not address whether you could have a firearm on your person within your home. It did not address anything outside of the home. The Court specifically said that all "longstanding prohibitions" are to be considered Constitutional until determined otherwise by the Supreme Court, which is the very spirit of "Due Process". Seeking incorporation through Due Process was the same as saying "we want to make sure each detail regarding this Amendment can be legally determined on a case-by-case basis". Rather than asserting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a fundamental right and therefore a privilege and immunity of being a United States Citizen, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was demoted to the status of a "gift" from the government in the form of an enumerated right of the people with the extent of coverage subject to determination by the Supreme Court in each individual case. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
"Supreme" Court.........2A issue
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom