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

To: Cboldt
The Supreme Court said this, some time ago, although the federal courts conveniently overlooked this for decades, in order make it appear that disarming the public was legal and constitutional.

And nothing in the New Jersey law prevents a person from keeping a firearm in his or her home. The Heller decision upheld that. But Heller also admitted that some degree of control by the states on where firearms could be carried and by whom was constitutional.

24 posted on 05/06/2014 6:45:28 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
-- But Heller also admitted that some degree of control by the states on where firearms could be carried and by whom was constitutional. --

I wouldn't say "admitted," as much as created a doctrine that allows bootstrapping of infringement as long as the courts drag their feet on issuing rulings.

The case I cited, Presser, says the same thing you just did. It upheld a law against conducting or participating in an armed parade without a parade permit. That is some degree of control on where firearms could be carried and by whom.

My contention is that a may issue legal regime (on paper) that is a no-issue regime as a matter of practice would probably be upheld by the courts, all the way through SCOTUS.

Heck, Washington DC's $500+ permitting process to possess a handgun in the home is seen as hunky dory by the robed tyrants.

26 posted on 05/06/2014 7:03:04 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

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