Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
So does this basically make all the federal firearm laws mandatory for state level and the states can't make any more strict laws than the feds? So California won't be able to limit magazine capcities and other states will have to issue ccws?
I guess I'm confused.
|
giong by the strict application of heller, this ruling will preclude any state or municipality in the 9th from denying a homeowner to have a gun in the home. future rulings will dictate other things later.
this should clear the way to invalidate the approved handgun list, eventually the ban on high cap mags, part or all of the roberti-roos act, and the unloaded open carry law in Cali. Other laws which stand a good chance of being knocked down now will be chicagos handgun ban, new yorks outrageous license and purchase permits, and turn may issue states in to shall issue states.
---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Oh, good. I figured I'd misread it.
So what you're advocating is to strip states of the right to make rulings on guns in favor of a national standard of some kind? Not to turn your own ideology around on you, but what's the harm in allowing states to make decisions regarding gun laws? Besides, California has less than 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people and Hawaii less than 3. Compare that to gun-free Alaska at 20 per 100,000 and Wyoming at 18.8. If we've found something that works for us, what's the harm in allowing us to continue?
|
Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right protected by the US constitution? why would we not enforce the constitution against every state that asked for admission in to the union? or were you a big fan of selective incorporation as it started out?