> tBone wrote: > Additionally, even if you do say that the second allows "reasonable > regulation", well then it should be federal, and the same everywhere. >
So that's the type of legal theory debate I was getting at and we're still going to have. But since everyone is in love with SCOTUS now: SCOTUS (5-4!) said that the Constitution does not allow for "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home", but also that the justices "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and ruled that the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns." Put another way, an outright gun ban is not constitutional but "some measures" "regulating handguns" are. Further, Scalia said nothing in their ruling should, "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." In short they didn't define "arms", they didn't define what "bearing arms" means, and they interpreted the 2nd Amendment as open to regulation, but they didn't define it. So the debate will continue. Which is what I was getting at. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:262946 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
