I disagree. I think the second clause should allow extension over class 3 firearms, of a military type. I also think the militia clause would prohibit large scale licensing due to the records involved and a fear of tyrannical government.
Additionally, even if you do say that the second allows "reasonable regulation", well then it should be federal, and the same everywhere. Between the 10th, and the clause about "Privileges and Immunities". But then again, I believe the right to travel from the same clause make drivers licenses unconstitutional. Adam Churvis wrote: >> Therefore if, via interpretation, we say permits are acceptable (i.e., >> we can ban "bearing arms" at certain times and places) then we can't >> also claim that an outright ban is unconstitutional. > > I *think* the Supreme Court justices know a *wee* bit more about this than > you do. > >> Personally I'm for well-regulated gun ownership regardless of what the >> Constitution says. > > And, thankfully for those of us who do care what the Constitution says, it > doesn't matter what you think. > > Respectfully, > > Adam Phillip Churvis > President > Productivity Enhancement > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:262938 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
