State laws still a question after Supreme Court ruling

GGReporter · 07-07-2008, 09:32 AM

The Supreme Court’s decision does not eliminate reasonable restrictions on firearms possession and ownership. D.C.’s licensing and registration provisions, for example, were left intact. The next fight between gun-rights advocates and the smelters will be over the definition of reasonable.

More...

GlockMeister · 07-07-2008, 01:26 PM

This my fellow gun owners is where it's going to get messy.

What's reasonable to gun owners won't be reasonable to the anti-gunners and visa-versa...The sad thing of it is, we let them, the anti-gunners, get or take one thing, they'll go for another, then another, then another, then another. IT WILL NEVER END!!! Gun owners on the other hand, well, we just want what we're entitled to, as Americans. We just want to have the ability to protect ourselves, where ever we are. We want the ability to protect our families, where ever they are. We want them to be able to protect themselves, if we're not around, where ever they are.

To me there are far more important serious matters people, politicians, our Government, SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT!

neophyte · 07-07-2008, 01:49 PM

My question:

Who is to say; what is reasonable.. Lawyers, Politicians, Courts,

Who defines my right to reasonable? ''Criminals''?

I carry SW 638 cause the ''cop'' was too heavy. Make ''cops'' lighter and I'll have one with me instead of the 638

GlockMeister · 07-07-2008, 02:19 PM

Exactly. Therein lies the problem. One persons definition of reasonable won't be the same as another's...

troy2000 · 07-07-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

Exactly. Therein lies the problem. One persons definition of reasonable won't be the same as another's...

Of course, the same question has to be sorted out for every law and every right we have: what is reasonable, and what isn't? For most of them, that's pretty much been hammered out over the years, and all that's left to do is see whether a particular case fits long-established standards.

However, the Supreme Court decision gives us a chance to start fresh on gun control. I'd say we now have a unique opportunity as gun owners to put the anti-gun crowd on the defensive for a change, after years of them being on the attack against us. Instead of claiming an unfettered right to do anything they want in the way of gun control, they're now going to have to defend existing laws as reasonable, before they can think about expanding them even farther. That in itself should keep many of them busy and out of our hair for a while.

Yes, we'll still have to work for our rights. No, it won't be cut-and-dried or easy. But it beats the living heck out of what would have happened had the decision gone the other way...

Deersniper · 07-07-2008, 04:29 PM

The devil's in the details, what is reasonable? Required gun safes? Children in the house? [CPS] Now come the regulation battles, so it ain't over yet, y'all. You can have the gun but..

07-07-2008, 09:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 717	State laws still a question after Supreme Court ruling The Supreme Court’s decision does not eliminate reasonable restrictions on firearms possession and ownership. D.C.’s licensing and registration provisions, for example, were left intact. The next fight between gun-rights advocates and the smelters will be over the definition of reasonable. More...

07-07-2008, 01:26 PM	#2
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 5,513	This my fellow gun owners is where it's going to get messy. What's reasonable to gun owners won't be reasonable to the anti-gunners and visa-versa...The sad thing of it is, we let them, the anti-gunners, get or take one thing, they'll go for another, then another, then another, then another. IT WILL NEVER END!!! Gun owners on the other hand, well, we just want what we're entitled to, as Americans. We just want to have the ability to protect ourselves, where ever we are. We want the ability to protect our families, where ever they are. We want them to be able to protect themselves, if we're not around, where ever they are. To me there are far more important serious matters people, politicians, our Government, SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT! __________________ I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

07-07-2008, 01:49 PM	#3
neophyte Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 3,617 Blog Entries: 2	Question My question: Who is to say; what is reasonable.. Lawyers, Politicians, Courts, Who defines my right to reasonable? ''Criminals''? I carry SW 638 cause the ''cop'' was too heavy. Make ''cops'' lighter and I'll have one with me instead of the 638 __________________ Craig By the standards of most

07-07-2008, 02:19 PM	#4
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 5,513	Exactly. Therein lies the problem. One persons definition of reasonable won't be the same as another's... __________________ I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

07-07-2008, 04:29 PM	#6
Deersniper Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,691	The devil's in the details, what is reasonable? Required gun safes? Children in the house? [CPS] Now come the regulation battles, so it ain't over yet, y'all. You can have the gun but..