GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2013, 06:31   #26
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 06:36   #27
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,825
Multi-round burst fire is considered fully automatic by BATFE. "More than one round with a single trigger pull" is the criteria. May be urban legend, but I've heard of people getting in serious trouble when their semi-automatic malfunctioned and fired multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 14:56   #28
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
I think you're confusing the issue with word definitions, and applications.

Obamacare was passed, and it was the law when the SCOTUS ruled on it. It was not fully implemented, and still isn't......

ooc
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Rock'n'Roll, AC/DC & Elvis! Clings to religion & guns!
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link
www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 23:43   #29
Edge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 336
scalia is very strong on 2nd amendment. i'm sure he was trying to convert kegan. lots of good discussion of judicial cases at illinoiscarry. guru and others trying to get cases before scotus before obama has a chance to flip court. this court is solidly 4-4 with kenedy as tie breaker who ruled in favor of 2nd on heller and mcdonald.
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 01:09   #30
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,419
You need standing to get in front of the court, have to be adversely affected to have standing, hard to imagine how you'd be adversely affected by something that has not taken effect yet. Maybe I'm oversimplifying or don't understand that aspect of the law.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 05:44   #31
Fear Night
NRA Life Member
 
Fear Night's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 3,853
I have heard Scalia mention in an interview soon after the Heller case that the 2A allows for arms up to what a modern ground infantry soldier would be issued. This is why things like Stinger missiles, mounted machine guns, landmines, tanks, etc. are still reasonable restrictions.

Would that mean the NFA could get overturned, or at least modified? I highly doubt we will be able to get selective fire but if they go down the ground infantry route they will have to address this issue.

Last edited by Fear Night; 02-18-2013 at 05:49..
Fear Night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:00   #32
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyGuy View Post
The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.
I have to ask why your owning a tank is any more dangerous to anyone than your owning an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, or a Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine, or a single-shot Mossberg .22, for that matter?

Would owning a tank suddenly turn on an 'evil' switch in you?

Do we accept that some military weapons simply provide too much temptation to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

Is it OK to ban tank ownership by civilians outright?

Why? Because the potential for destruction is so much higher? Like the potential of an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, as compared to a semi-automatic 'hunting' rifle with a 5-round magazine?
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 02-18-2013 at 06:01..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 20:38   #33
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
I have to ask why your owning a tank is any more dangerous to anyone than your owning an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, or a Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine, or a single-shot Mossberg .22, for that matter?

Would owning a tank suddenly turn on an 'evil' switch in you?

Do we accept that some military weapons simply provide too much temptation to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

Is it OK to ban tank ownership by civilians outright?

Why? Because the potential for destruction is so much higher? Like the potential of an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, as compared to a semi-automatic 'hunting' rifle with a 5-round magazine?
Goods questions, I've never seen answered on GT or anywhere. Do you know the answers?

Should civilians have anything they can afford to buy? I'd trust you to have hand grenades, for example. But I'd have concern if a criminal stole them from you, and then sold them to other more dangerous criminals.

When I say "concern", I don't mean laws, so I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Would criminals use hand grenades for mayhem? I don't know.

Or maybe they wouldn't be any more dangerous than guns. I don't know.

Either way, I'd first prefer keeping violent felons locked up in jail .

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

Last edited by ithaca_deerslayer; 02-18-2013 at 20:40..
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 20:45   #34
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,210
We should be writing and pressuring Scalia too.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 23:08   #35
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
Yes.....It mentions that Elana Keagan harvested a whitetail doe in Wyoming.

Familiarizing her with firearms isn't a bad thing, but I am not feeling very good about this at all.

What Scalia needs to do is teach her about what the constitution means.....and, if she is to uphold it, it really doesn't matter if she is pro or anti-gun.......the constitution is what it is, and it's about maintaining the relationship between "the people" and a militia. Because the second amendment is one sentence, and there is no room for doubt that arming private citizens for no other purpose than that of military preparedness is the sole focus, and objective of the document.

I'm getting really tired of hearing about hunting, and self defense. These things are included in the total meaning of the second amendment by default.....but they are not in any way, the purpose, or intent of the second amendment.

Why is Scalia not mentioning these things? I'll tell what I think all this means.........he is ready to fold under pressure, and not uphold the constitution for the very reason it was written, or exists.



ooc

Quote:
Originally Posted by snerd View Post
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
You are both 100% correct.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 23:10   #36
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
It had been passed into law.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 782
229 Members
553 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42