Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Heller Hollow?
Second Amendment Project ^ | November 2011 | David Kopel

Posted on 10/23/2011 4:59:09 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi

Does the Second Amendment protect anything other than a handgun in the home? When anti-gun laws are challenged in court, should judges uphold repressive ordinances like the District of Columbia’s gun licensing scheme, which forces applicants to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours just to buy an ordinary rifle? These are the questions being fought in the courts right now, in cases backed by the NRA. What answers the courts will provide are far from certain. The ultimate answers will depend on whether or not the next generation of federal judges is appointed by a President who values the Second Amendment.

(Excerpt) Read more at davekopel.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; courts; heller; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
This was published in the November issue of various NRA magazines.

It clearly shows that a single vote on the Supreme Court could result in our Second Amendment Rights being restricted to single shot pistols in the home coupled with outrageous licensing and registration fees and paperwork.

1 posted on 10/23/2011 4:59:14 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Well, it was plain to see that if given ANY leeway in enforcement of this ruling, and that if no penalties to any agency or entity in this enforcement were to not comply with the ruling...

Nothing much is going to happen to correct this issue anytime soon...

All in the name of NOT rocking the boat and upsetting the liberal progressives in this country...

I look at it this way...You do not have to live in D.C., it is a small place surrounded by some fairly amiable states that do respect and understand the issues of individual, unalienable rights of its citizens...If you work there, unfortunately you take your chances...I don’t like those odds for myself and for others in that situation...

IIRC, when the decision came to a 5-4 split, that, to me, was NOT a resounding victory in my opinion...

Here it is a while later, and we still have problems implementing and enforcing the ruling...

I say it is a victory for the opposition...

Bottom line: I and many others still have our weapons...And if it ever came down to an outright ban and confiscation...

There are going to be a whole gaggle of people very unhappy trying to pick up any appreciable amount of our bang-sticks...

That will be a fact...


2 posted on 10/23/2011 5:15:28 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
...when the decision came to a 5-4 split, that, to me, was NOT a resounding victory in my opinion...

Couple that with the fact that the majority made clear that restrictions on certain types of firearms is still allowable as well as "reasonable" restrictions on places where you can excercise your Second Amendment rights (schools), the decision was gutted and opened-up for liberal shenanigans.

I said this on the day Heller was decided (you can find the posts here on FR) that the decision was not a victory because it could easily result in only allowing single-shot pistols in the home.

The key is putting great judges on the the SCOTUS. That will not happen with a second term of Obama.

3 posted on 10/23/2011 5:25:43 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
>FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In a split ruling in an ongoing NRA-supported case challenging the restrictive gun laws established by the Washington D.C. government in defiance of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a number of highly restrictive gun laws.

Apparently to the COA in the District of Columbia it is....

4 posted on 10/23/2011 5:26:30 AM PDT by Jerrybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jerrybob
Apparently to the COA in the District of Columbia it is....

Yup, and all it takes is a SCOTUS who refuses to hear the case to keep such decision on the books.

Unlke the premature celebrators of Heller, some of us realized such a decision takes decades to be given breadth and limits. Without a conservative SCOTUS majority, Heller would result in the harshest restriction of our 2A Rights.

5 posted on 10/23/2011 5:39:11 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi; Joe Brower

bttt


6 posted on 10/23/2011 6:03:36 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I’m bored with this judicial dithering about a clear, concise, simple Constitutional ammendment. I despise this constant attempt to get around its simple meaning by a bunch of leftists who have no place being on the bench at all.

I am, however, ready to SHOOT—if necessary to preserve my (our) rights.


7 posted on 10/23/2011 6:06:12 AM PDT by Flintlock (Photo ID for all voters. Let the dead rest in peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Click The Pic To Donate

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. Thomas Jefferson

8 posted on 10/23/2011 7:06:42 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"I said this on the day Heller was decided (you can find the posts here on FR) that the decision was not a victory because it could easily result in only allowing single-shot pistols in the home."

At any time in the past the U.S. Supreme Court could have ruled that "arms" are defined as single-shot weapons. But that decision would have only applied to state militia weapons.

After Heller, that decision now would apply to everyone. They have already decided (in the D.C. case) that "keep" means "keep in your home", "bear" means "bear in your home", and "arms" means "handguns".

9 posted on 10/23/2011 7:15:59 AM PDT by misterwhite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
10 posted on 10/23/2011 7:42:21 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterwhite
...and "arms" means "handguns".

With a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds.

11 posted on 10/23/2011 8:36:30 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Conversely, if a person wanted to own his own battle tank and corresponding live ammunition, a court would certainly rule that the person has no Second Amendment right to do so. The Second Amendment’s language of “keep and bear arms” implies that the Amendment protects weapons that a person can “bear” or carry. A tank bears the user, and not vice versa, so tank ownership is not part of the Second Amendment.

The right is to KEEP and bear arms. Clearly a tank can be kept. Just like cannons or cannon armed ships could be and were owned by individuals at the time the second amendment was written.

I think Kopel, while being realistic as to what a Court would find, restricts the meaning beyond what was understood by the founders.

It's all about prior restraint. The first amendment does not allow for it, and neither does the second. But both allow for punishing those who misuse the right. To be charged with Conspiracy one must take some action in towards actually carrying out some illegal act. Just talking about it doesn't count.

If the second amendment were enforced in that manner, you could have your tank and ammo for the cannon, but you couldn't fire it in the neighborhood, (endangering others) and you couldn't drive it up on the steps of the Capital and blast away. Or run the tank over your neighbor's cars either.

12 posted on 10/23/2011 2:15:12 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

To say Heller wasn’t a victory because it didn’t end the war against guns, is like saying Midway wasn’t a victory because the Japanese still had a navy. Heller was a legal turning point. The gun grabbers and no longer dismiss the 2A as an irrelevant anachronism, or only applying to state milita. Just because there are still battles ahead doesn’t make it any less a huge victory.


13 posted on 10/23/2011 2:33:30 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Heller was a legal turning point.

Even if it's completely ignored without repercussions?

14 posted on 10/23/2011 2:42:50 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
it is a small place surrounded by some fairly amiable states that do respect and understand the issues of individual

DC is surrounded on three sides by Maryland and one side by GA. Maryland is NOT a gun friendly state. Md. is one of the few states that are still "may issue" rather than "shall issue". It also has a ban on various typed of firearms, and additional restrictions on full auto, etc. The only right that is fully exercised in the Peoples' Democracy of MD is teh right of the indolent to used the power of government to rob the hardworking.

15 posted on 10/23/2011 3:12:39 PM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Heller was the most important 2nd Amendment case ever to hit SCOTUS. Here’s why. It set the foundation for further cases. The big one, and the one that is only mentioned once in the majority opinion in Heller II from the COA is McDonald v. Chicago 2010.

That gave us incorporation. Like it or not, that decision had very far reaching ramifications that will take years to iron out.

If SCOTUS weakens the “scrutiny” for the 2nd Amendment or they apply different standards, example being the NFA tax being ruled Constitutional, doors will then swing open for attacks on other enumerated Rights. Again, if the NFA is ruled Constitutional, then a revisit to the issue of poll taxes will happen.

SCOTUS is walking through a mine field created by themselves, their predecessors and Congress.

Something else to consider... the COA in this case stepped way outside the bounds of the questions at hand. References to “machine gun” and the machine gun ban are on every page of that decision. They know it’s a dead duck and they are trying to find a way to justify it Constitutionally. In their efforts to protect it, they have made it extremely vulnerable. Their verbiage in their decision has all but guaranteed a SCOTUS review.

Celebration of Heller wasn’t premature, it was appropriate. The issue now is the doubting Thomas’s that have no clue what is going on legally on the 2nd Amendment. Nothing that has happened so far with Heller II was unexpected. There’s a lot more coming. Heller III is in the works as is Heller IV.

My recommendation would be to stop panicking, help out by donating to the Heller Foundation and volunteer to spread the word and work at gun shows and other venues and to help organize in your area.


16 posted on 10/23/2011 3:29:56 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
My recommendation would be to stop panicking, help out by donating to the Heller Foundation and volunteer to spread the word and work at gun shows and other venues and to help organize in your area.

Well said. We have more than enough naysayers and defeatists. It is easy to use convenient excuses to do nothing. The fact is that we are winning on this front, and we need to keep on pushing, and educating, and working elections to gain the widest possible victory.

The facts, the Constitution, and the culture are on our side.

17 posted on 10/23/2011 4:03:13 PM PDT by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Amen. Plus, that idiot with Occupy LA showed us exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for. He said that they’d have to use violence to achieve their goals.

Remember kids, that is the same kind of libtard that wants to take your right to own a gun and defend yourself away. He proved that the 2nd is a desperately needed Right and we must exercise it and protect it jealously.

Basically, it comes down to this... Ask the libtards if their disarmament agenda is worth dying for. I know that my right to self defense is worth killing or dying for. I won’t take the first violent action but don’t be surprised when mine is the last of the confrontation.


18 posted on 10/23/2011 4:27:29 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

“I know that my right to self defense is worth killing or dying for.”

Agreed....... Molon Labe....... The ancient motto of every free man who intends to remain free. There are many in this nation that know and appreciate the ideal expressed so long ago by Leonidas of Sparta when confronted by an evil tyrant.

May we always follow Leonidas’ lead........


19 posted on 10/23/2011 5:51:45 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Did you mean “VA”...I think you did...

Thats really the only place, and yes MD is a bit of a pill to swallow, but MD is still a state that has “some” support for the Second Amendment...Not much, but enough to keep it off the really bad list...


20 posted on 10/24/2011 4:50:34 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
but MD is still a state that has “some” support for the Second Amendment

Sorry good buddy, but you are wrong about Maryland. MD has about the same 2nd amend support that NY, MA, NJ, IL, and RI have. The MD political scene is dominated by the liberal democratic party and included in that is their intense hatred of the freedom guaranteed by the second amendment.

21 posted on 10/24/2011 5:07:01 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The right is to KEEP and bear arms. Clearly a tank can be kept. Just like cannons or cannon armed ships could be and were owned by individuals at the time the second amendment was written.

You did not read Heller where "arms" are not "any arms" just as the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to speak for any reason.

Here is the salient discussion of "limitations":

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

They consider sawed-off shotguns are "dangerous and unusual weapons".

Your tank and ship arguments are sunk right out of the gate.

22 posted on 10/24/2011 5:41:10 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Celebration of Heller wasn’t premature, it was appropriate. The issue now is the doubting Thomas’s that have no clue what is going on legally on the 2nd Amendment. Nothing that has happened so far with Heller II was unexpected. There’s a lot more coming. Heller III is in the works as is Heller IV.

The salient point here is that Heller, MacDonald, etc all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS. If tragedy occurs and we lose a conservative justice, Obama appoints the replacement and your second amendment rights are finished.

Celebrations were premature because all Heller did was start the analysis of the limitations that can be placed on the Second Amendment. Heller stirred up the anti-gun groups, to become more desperate....that includes Obama and partially explains Fast & Furious.

These are VERY dangerous times with a 5-4 majority that is shaky, at best.

If you don't think someone like Obama and his ilk are capable of eliminating a SCOTUS Justice, especially, if electoral defeat is imminent, you are deluded.

23 posted on 10/24/2011 5:49:10 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
realized such a decision takes decades to be given breadth and limits

Funny, the unconstitutional prohibition took mere days to implement. Why should we "realize" undoing it should take decades? by then it will be the accepted norm for generations.

24 posted on 10/24/2011 5:55:04 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Celebration of Heller wasn’t premature, it was appropriate. The issue now is the doubting Thomas’s that have no clue what is going on legally on the 2nd Amendment. Nothing that has happened so far with Heller II was unexpected. There’s a lot more coming. Heller III is in the works as is Heller IV.

The salient point here is that Heller, MacDonald, etc all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS. If tragedy occurs and we lose a conservative justice, Obama appoints the replacement and your second amendment rights are finished.

Celebrations were premature because all Heller did was start the analysis of the limitations that can be placed on the Second Amendment. Heller stirred up the anti-gun groups, to become more desperate....that includes Obama and partially explains Fast & Furious.

These are VERY dangerous times with a 5-4 majority that is shaky, at best.

If you don't think someone like Obama and his ilk are capable of eliminating a SCOTUS Justice, especially, if electoral defeat is imminent, you are deluded.

In the words of the great philosopher, Yoda:

Victory? Victory, you say? Not a victory Heller is. Begun, this war has.

25 posted on 10/24/2011 5:56:54 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Funny, the unconstitutional prohibition took mere days to implement. Why should we "realize" undoing it should take decades? by then it will be the accepted norm for generations.

It took generations for the liberals to erode our Second Amendment rights. It is only since 1967 and the infiltration of communism into pockets of this nation that the cause has been accelerated.

What is even more disturbing is that the majority opinion is that "arms" are being defined as those "commonly in use" which does not include sawed-off shotguns and, possibly, machine guns.

Well, the reason shotguns and machine guns are not "commonly in use" is because they are tightly regulated, restricted and banned in some places.

The 1986 machine gun ban stopped the production/conversion of new machine guns for the specific purpose of being "commonly in use".

26 posted on 10/24/2011 6:02:41 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Something you may not realize. While the overall decision as to whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional or not was a 5-4 win... It was unanimous, both in the majority and dissent that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

That is very critical in the whole scheme of things.

When SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to be protected under the 14th, they opened doors for us big time. You may not realize it but with that decision, elected officials can no longer hide behind their office when sued over the 2nd Amendment.

The game has changed and we will prevail.


27 posted on 10/24/2011 6:18:25 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Something you may not realize. While the overall decision as to whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional or not was a 5-4 win... It was unanimous, both in the majority and dissent that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

That is very critical in the whole scheme of things.

When SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to be protected under the 14th, they opened doors for us big time. You may not realize it but with that decision, elected officials can no longer hide behind their office when sued over the 2nd Amendment.

The game has changed and we will prevail.


28 posted on 10/24/2011 6:31:35 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Re-read BCR’s comment with care. It does not “all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS” because the court is being guided into a minefield of its own devising; should that “single vote” go the wrong way, SCOTUS opens a self-inflicted world of hurt. Those votes do not happen in a vacuum, they have direct and profound & untenable consequences on other sensitive issues. As he wrote, SCOTUS will face an unavoidable decision on NFA: should that “single vote” fail to overturn NFA then poll taxes will become legal - not an option a SCOTUS judge can or will take.

The war has been long under way. Opposing forces have made choices which will soon leave them the option of either surrender or falling off a cliff.

Oh, and if ANY of those “Fast & Furious” items are subject to NFA, the consequences to the perps magnify tenfold.


29 posted on 10/24/2011 6:31:40 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

In 1934, NFA took us from near-total RKBA freedom to most of the restrictions we have now in a very very short time. Prior, you could get a Tommygun mail-order; after, whole categories were banned for all practical purposes (with a tax some 4x the cost of the item) and intense licensing (loosely defined) as a model for others to follow. It may have taken decades/generations for the ripple effects to spread, but dropping that rock did not take long at all.

Your well-understood point amounts to attempting to un-ripple the pond, when the better & faster solution is to drop another rock in.

BTW: listen to BCR. He is...well-versed.


30 posted on 10/24/2011 6:44:26 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
As he wrote, SCOTUS will face an unavoidable decision on NFA: should that “single vote” fail to overturn NFA then poll taxes will become legal - not an option a SCOTUS judge can or will take.

Go back and re-read Heller. Look at the twisted, convoluted decisions that SCOTUS has rendered in the past with regard to firearm rights.

Liberals do not care if they open the door to poll taxes. In fact, they may see those as the means to fight Voter ID.

Deceit and fraud are not outside the scope of liberals, even those on the SCOTUS.

31 posted on 10/24/2011 6:45:30 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
BTW: listen to BCR. He is...well-versed.

I do not dispute that. I have only disputed the celebrations over Heller.

The battles are engaged....it is not a time for celebration.

32 posted on 10/24/2011 6:48:30 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Since Heller and McDonald, the lower, Liberal courts have been giving Heller the finger and laughing at SCOTUS. Because Liberals hate Heller they have no intention of enforcing it. Obama has already said he plans to rule by decree.


33 posted on 10/24/2011 6:48:51 AM PDT by pabianice (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Convoluted indeed.

Nonetheless, Heller passed, and the dissents agreed with the core point. The ancillary contortions were to avoid explosive tangential consequences, and will not stand up to direct scrutiny.

Other past SCOTUS decisions were more right than many give credit; it was the subsequent interpretation and spin which rendered the environment we are in. (Miller was correct, but ours bought into the spin rather than holding to the actual decision.)

There comes a point where deceit and fraud consume themselves and cannot overcome plain truth.

BCR & I are well aware of your points. We are, nonetheless, optimistic.


34 posted on 10/24/2011 6:52:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Since Heller and McDonald, the lower, Liberal courts have been giving Heller the finger and laughing at SCOTUS. Because Liberals hate Heller they have no intention of enforcing it.

There is little to enforce. Heller affirmed that the 2A is an individual right. McDonald incorporated that right under the 14th.

The danger ahead is in defining the limits of that right. It is here that I, and the author, am advising caution for those celebrating and thinking the war is won.

The liberal judges cannot change Heller or McDonald. So, their only hope is to limit the right to single shot pistols used in the home.

Liberals are most dangerous when they are losing. They are losing, but can turn the tide quickly.

This is why it is so critical that we remain united with the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, etc and not turn on each other like dogs.

This is why it is so critial that we unite behind a solid conservative in the primary.

35 posted on 10/24/2011 6:56:06 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
BCR & I are well aware of your points. We are, nonetheless, optimistic.

I share your optimism as I have full faith in four of the nine justices. Kennedy is a question-mark.

This is why I urge caution. We have knocked the bees nest out of the tree, but we now have to deal with a swarm of issues.

36 posted on 10/24/2011 6:59:34 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: from occupied ga

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf

The source website gives a tremendous amount of information on the other states, which I find to be a great guideline for those of us who do a lot of traveling...

MD is a “may issue” state,which has made it “somewhat” amiable, if you press the issue, to carry in that state...But it’s up to those who want to jump through those flaming hoops...

there is some more study to be done, but I do not see anything yet that says you can’t keep a loaded firearm in your home, which was almost a conerstone issue with Heller in D.C., if I recall correctly...

Like I said, MD is not a total ogre as far as I can tell when it comes to being whre D.C./Heller wanted to get to...That’s all I was saying...

There are many states where we have it good, but there is always room to improve...Even here in Texas...

Here is what I found on a “firearms” search on the MD Atty generals website...

http://www.oag.state.md.us/ZOOMsearch.asp?zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=firearms

Yes, a lot of registration issues, types of weapons, but I didn’t immediately see anything restricting posession of a firearm on ones private property (home) for lawful, self-defensive purposes...

Maybe we can find something that knocks that out of the ballpark...

And yes, I did see all the AWB, and other transportation restrictions there as well...but like Isaid, I don’t see anything that says you can’t have one ready to go in the home...


38 posted on 10/24/2011 7:52:43 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
...may issue... But it’s up to those who want to jump through those flaming hoops

Again I must disagree. In a may issue state, no matter how many hoops you jump through it is up to the police to determine if you get one or not, and I can assure you that no one I know in MD has been able to obtain one.

but I do not see anything yet that says you can’t keep a loaded firearm in your home,

True, but I don't consider this basic minimum as "gun friendly" I take multiple criteria, most of which you listed as determining if a state is anti-gun or not, and I consider Md to be anti-gun on a par with NY, NJ, etc.

39 posted on 10/24/2011 9:12:22 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson