Comments on: Agenda Totally In Tact

By: anon

anon — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:13:54 +0000

Actually, what Heller changes is that THEY are on the slippery slope now…

And you can tell they don’t much like it…

By: BC

BC — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:50:30 +0000

I agree with Kurt — outright bans were already politically impractical if not legally impermissible outside of most urban centers. The gun grabbers have therefore been resorting to a “death by a thousand cuts” strategy for years. If the cumulative effect of gun control regulations is to make handgun ownership so onerous that nobody bothers, then that’s a de facto ban if not a de jure one.

And that’s what we need to be concerned with.

By: the pistolero

the pistolero — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:34:00 +0000

I thought “limit” more or less does mean “ban” to the Bradys. Which, if I am reading Heller correctly, is proscribed by the 2A…

By: jones

jones — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:01:05 +0000

District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.” (Heller v. DC p 59)

That to me means “needs proof a law works with minimal intrusion.”

Good luck getting your junk past Scalia, Paul.

PS- See how they want to limit “Assault” weapons. What happened to ban, banners?

By: Kurt "45superman" Hofmann

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:28:29 +0000

Besides, the slippery slope argument is not gone–between microstamping (both guns and ammunition), “smart guns,” licensing, registration, etc., they can regulate the right (how’s that for an oxymoron) out of existence.

By: mike w.

mike w. — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:24:49 +0000

It’ll certainly change things in the 9th circuit since they can no longer just say “I’m sorry, but the 2A is a collective right of state militias, so you can’t challenge law X at all.”