John Kerry signed the U.N. Global Arms Trade Treaty today

[AdamSmith22134]

Ergo, this treaty, even if ratified by the Senate, which is highly unlikely for 2/3rd's (since Demo's barely have a majority alone), as Widge said, would be ruled unconstitutional by the present US Supreme Court...

We all thought Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional, too.

Not sure what the NRA is waiting for

They're probably waiting for the next anti-gun RINO to step up and run for President (Chris Christie?) so they can endorse him just like they endorsed Mitt "Massachusetts AWB" Romney. 

I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

A lot of people across the USA are anti-gun, some anti-handgun and others anti-tactical rifle.  The anti-tactical rifle battle has yet to be fought in the courts somewhere.

Fortunately Heller protects handguns, at least for now.

[JimThornTX]

I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It is simply the federal government FORCING every single American citizen to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can AFFORD it or not. That is the epitome of unconstitutionality. And one of the most Conservative judges, John Roberts, appointed by the equally Conservative President George W. Bush, gave in to political correctness and made the wrong decision.

And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

And you can can guarantee that? Chris Christie would only nominate someone that would pass Senate confirmation. And that would depend on the make-up of the Senate at the time of confirmation. I also highly doubt Chris Christie would nominate someone more Conservative than he is, even if that person could pass Senate confirmation. Chris Christie would just nominate a Moderate at best. Same as Hillary would do.

BTW - as a gun owner, would you seriously vote for an anti-gun candidate just because they have an "R" at the end of their name?  That's the problem with the GOP today. Too many people settling for Moderate RINO's instead of demanding strict Constitutional Conservative "TEA party" candidates like Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.

[AdamSmith22134]

I myself never thought ObamaCare was unconstitutional -- it is simply a direct tax based on health care coverage -- new but not necessarily unconstitutional.

It is simply the federal government FORCING every single American citizen to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can AFFORD it or not. That is the epitome of unconstitutionality. And one of the most Conservative judges, John Roberts, appointed by the equally Conservative President George W. Bush, gave in to political correctness and made the wrong decision.

And Christie may be anti gun, but at least he would appoint strict constructionist US Supreme Court justices.  Unfortunately Hillary probably would not.

And you can can guarantee that? Chris Christie would only nominate someone that would pass Senate confirmation. And that would depend on the make-up of the Senate at the time of confirmation. I also highly doubt Chris Christie would nominate someone more Conservative than he is, even if that person could pass Senate confirmation. Chris Christie would just nominate a Moderate at best. Same as Hillary would do.

ObamaCare is just a disguised, earmarked tax hike based on medical insurance coverage.  If you have your own medical insurance, you are not affected.  If you don't, then you are forced, or taxed, to be more specific.  Simply a political decision based on either guns or butter.  This is butter.  R = guns.  D = butter.  Nothing new about that.

I would love to see whom Christie appoints to the Court.  I would trust that Justice more than Hillary's.

The T Party is way ahead of their times.  Nobody else is ready for a Federal bankruptcy resulting from freezing the debt limit.  And a government shutdown for a long period of several years is also hard to stomach.  The T Party should simply live with ObamaCare for now, even though it may become expensive.

[bozwell]

We're getting off on a tangent, the big surprise wasn't that "ObamaCare" was constitutional, but rather they didn't use the commerce clause to uphold it.   "ObamaCare" is no different than social security, Medicare, and all the other government programs we have no choice but to pay for.

Ultimately, it works out as a tax, and one I personally wish we didn't have.  If people can't afford it, let them do without rather than siphon off free healthcare from the taxpayers when their lack of insurance catches up with them down the road.  But then again, I personally wish we'd stop handing out as much free medical care as we do, as I dislike paying for it on top of my own insurance.

[Grendel]

Lets get this back on track please folks. Obamacare has nothing to do with the RKBA.

[AdamSmith22134]

Lets get this back on track please folks. Obamacare has nothing to do with the RKBA.

Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

If only ever so slightly.

 

[Skookum]

With Scalia's written verbiage in Heller that he and the majority believe the States still have the right to regulate open carry and concealed carry ? .

Heller is silent on the topic of open carry, properly so, because the issue was not before the court:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In WA open carry is allowed, but, per RCW 9.41.250), "[e]very person who ? [f]urtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon ? is guilty of a gross misdemeanor ? ."  My Concealed Pistol License allows me to carry my CZs concealed or openly, but I can carry my Glock 'n Gut ? ? only openly.  I don't mind that too much, because pocket carrying my Glock 'n Gut is hard on my wardrobe.

[JimThornTX]

Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

Christie is anti-gun. That is enough to keep me from voting for him. Just like I didn't vote for the anti-gun Mitt Romney. I will just keep voting Libertarian until the GOP wakes up and kicks out the RINOs.

[AdamSmith22134]

Christie is more likely to appoint justices who support the RKBA than is Hillary.

Christie is anti-gun. That is enough to keep me from voting for him. Just like I didn't vote for the anti-gun Mitt Romney. I will just keep voting Libertarian until the GOP wakes up and kicks out the RINOs.

Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

Feinstein is anti-gun.

Pelosi is anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.

[JimThornTX]

Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.

Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

I'm afraid your judgement has been clouded by drinking too much Kaliforia Kool-Aid. People like you are why we have Chris Christie and Mitt Romney in the GOP in the first place. Moderate RINOs slowly eroding away our 2nd Amendment rights, one firearm at a time.

[Grendel]

Just because they draw the line short of semi-auto tactical rifles does NOT mean they are anti-gun.

THAT'S what anti-gun means.

Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

I'm afraid your judgement has been clouded by drinking too much Kaliforia Kool-Aid. People like you are why we have Chris Christie and Mitt Romney in the GOP in the first place. Moderate RINOs slowly eroding away our 2nd Amendment rights, one firearm at a time.

You made your point in the first paragraph. The second was unnecessary. I will not warn people again about ad hominem posts.

The next person to post one gets a week off.

[AdamSmith22134]

Anti-gun means ANYONE that is AGAINST private American citizens owning ANY type of firearm. Period. Feinstein and Pelosi are obviously more radical than Christie and Romney, but they are ALL anti-gunners because they DO NOT support the 2nd Amendment 100%...

The only state that I know of which allows the ownership of belt fed fully automatic machine guns is Kentucky.  Not even Texas goes that far.

So "ANY type of firearm" is only valid in Kentucky.

ALL the other 49 states and DC draw a line somewhere.  Scalia even alludes to this in his write-up in Heller.

He calls the weapons that cross that line "destructive devices" and specifically mentions sawed-off shotguns.

Since a sawed-off shotgun is ANY type firearm, it appears that Scalia disagrees with the "ANY type" notion.

As do I.  I agree with Scalia.  There is a line and it should be drawn.

I'm glad he at least gave protection under the 2nd Amendment to semi-auto pistols specifically because of their popularity in America.  As his write-up is limited to Heller's case in DC, he did not elaborate any further, regarding all the other questions out there on 2A, namely (1) semi-auto rifles, (2) semi-auto shotguns, (3) high caliber rifles of .50 or more, etc.

Heller only scratches the surface.  There will need to be plenty more judicial review, eventually.

[JimThornTX]

The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep means own, bear means carry unaided. That's it. The only restriction to firearm ownership our Founding Fathers intended was to firearms that one could not carry by himself unaided.

Now, if the Federal government wanted to further restrict firearms ownership beyond simply what one could bear unaided, they should have done so the correct way, via Constitutional amendment. Just like they did when they wanted to stop everyone from drinking alcohol. They didn't just pass a law prohibiting alcohol, they amended the Constitution making alcohol illegal.

Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

You are entitled to your opinions. Just like I am entitled to my opinions. And I will call anyone that is against my right to own any type of firearm I can bear an anti-gunner. Especially people that are against semi-auto magazine-fed rifles like Mitt Romney that enacted a state-level "assault weapons" ban on the good people of Massachusetts in 2004 because he knew the Federal ban would not be renewed that year (and with the blessing of the NRA, which is why I don't trust them, either).

[Grendel]

Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

+1.

[AdamSmith22134]

The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep means own, bear means carry unaided. That's it. The only restriction to firearm ownership our Founding Fathers intended was to firearms that one could not carry by himself unaided.

Now, if the Federal government wanted to further restrict firearms ownership beyond simply what one could bear unaided, they should have done so the correct way, via Constitutional amendment. Just like they did when they wanted to stop everyone from drinking alcohol. They didn't just pass a law prohibiting alcohol, they amended the Constitution making alcohol illegal.

Our Founding Fathers used muskets for hunting and for self-defense. Today, American citizens use semi-auto AR15 and the semi-auto AK47 and other semi-auto magazine-fed rifles for the same purpose, hunting and self-defense. The law does not automatically change just because technology changes.

You are entitled to your opinions. Just like I am entitled to my opinions. And I will call anyone that is against my right to own any type of firearm I can bear an anti-gunner. Especially people that are against semi-auto magazine-fed rifles like Mitt Romney that enacted a state-level "assault weapons" ban on the good people of Massachusetts in 2004 because he knew the Federal ban would not be renewed that year (and with the blessing of the NRA, which is why I don't trust them, either).

Scalia and the other USSC justices are each also entitled to their opinions.

Funny thing though, their opinions are more important and relevant than yours or mine.

You can check out their opinions and dissents here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

... Quite a far cry from "quite clear."