This one is elemental to all of us law abiding responsible gun owners!

If you care at all about your guns, you need to pay attention to this one.

Ruling and subsequent fallout from opinions will be legion.

I am glad the Supreme Court ruled that citizens in D.C. can carry guns. It will be curious how the fallout will develop. The anti gun nuts are little different than the Global Warmer crowd since nothing ever ends with them.

And now that the Mexican Military is sending death squads to the United States, Americans will need all the firepower they can stow away.  

Yes, Lix -- Unfortunately there will come a time when it will be every man (or woman) for himself (herself).

An unarmed, flaccid, unable to respond in any effective way populace is just what the Democrat-Lib-Socialists want.

And they will use all the crime committed by the scofflaws to justify their oppression of the responsible citizens (that own guns).

Just wait and see.............

Here's the first off the rails, insane quotes from those defenders of freedom over at DU:

http://www.democraticunderg...

The funny thing is that the DU bloggers use a right-wing argument about local governance to steal the 2nd Amendment.

What outrages me more, however, is that the individual ruling of each justice, on any case involving rights, can be predicted with near perfect accuracy, NOT by looking at the Constitution, but by looking at the political party of the president who appointed them.

There has to be a better way to appoint Supreme Court judges, one that results in decisions based on the Constitution rather than on the appointing president's party.

You're right Chico, we can be grateful for this decision but those wanting to disarm us are going to keep on trying. But as usual, I wonder why all those in favor of the right to keep and bear arms do not belong to the NRA? That's the only organization confronting the enemies of gun ownership.

Gun Owners of America is another pro-gun organization.

Funny, I thought 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans. The vote here was 5-4.

Kinda blows that theory.

I wonder why the gun owners aren't card-carrying members of the ACLU as well, since they fight for the *ENTIRE* bill of rights including the second.  There's a reason it wasn't first, you know...

so you could screed RF?

Sam, it is important to belong to the NRA and there are some other orgs on a more local level that are just as important. The california ones like the CA RFLE & PISTOL OWNERS ASSN, etc.  are important as well.

We have issues of a dumb species of buzzard trying to make himself extinct by eating lead bullets out of gutpiles (when he isn't drinking anti-freeze, etc.) thus banning lead in D-8 and D-9, etc.....

It will be a constant battle, but for now the decision is a good one. Just a lot closer than I would have thought. That scares me with an Obamantion in 09.................

The stupid NRA calls my husband all the time asking if he wants a lifetime membership for $500.  He made the mistake once of getting a subscription to their magazine.   Oh! he's suffered for it , because I haven't shut up since then.

I usually answer the phone and talk to the same woman every time they call.  I've told her at least a dozen times  that we don't want a membership and to take us off her call list.

I'm tempted to ask her why we would want a lifetime membership to the NRA when we just made a sizable donation to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Maybe that would shut her up.

BTW  I'm in favor of gun ownership. After a waiting period, of course.    It's one of those issues I've changed my mind about in the last 40 years.    If I outlive my husband,  I'll want an arsenal in my house to protect myself  from the predators out there.

The NRA is not stupid.

You last statement about being in favor of gun ownership and wanting an arsenal when Hubby passes tells me you should be a supporter.

Avidly so..................

Chco

I'm not a joiner.   And the NRA IS stupid.  ie All the money they waste calling avid liberals.

I am a multi gun owner who slept with a 40cal on my nightstand last night, but I am still leary of the NRA. If there is an Obamination I fear all NRA members will be rounded up. I dont like being on any list.

calling avid liberals?

Not exactly sure what that means but I know many Libs that belong to the NRA.

They recognize it is a lobby (just like thousands of others) that works to help keep their 2nd Amendment Rights in tact. It all depends on whose Ox is gored, just like anything else.

I guess it's stating the obvious that those of us who own guns should support the NRA (as well as any local gun organizations)  since they lobby for our right to own firearms.

As Audrey, and the lady who was single stated, I intend to be able to protect myself against anyone who would feel they had a right to my possessions or an intent to harm me.   If people feel safe without firearms, good for them, I don't.

I have two dogs who go absolutely bonkers when anyone comes around so I consider that the bad guys first warning.  Ignore that and I have a much more powerful welcome for you.

Heh.  I just had a great example.  A business truck of some sort pulled in to a driveway across the street.  My dog is barking, the next door neighbors dog is barking and Zack is running around trying to get my attention.    First alert.

so you could screed RF? 

Haven't screeded since our last concrete pour.

It's not handguns that's  being threatened by "gun laws" it the BIG FIREPOWER.  The kind that criminals and terrorists own.

And SCOTUS apparently left that question open, for now.

Don't be fooled by Chico's talk of 2nd Amendment; the NRA; the Supreme Court; etc. He just wants to continue blowing away cute, furry, harmless, defenseless squirrels. Squirrel lovers unite!

catpaw, you obviously haven't been around farming much. 

When the lead ban covers 22's in CA Cat, then the squirrel huntin days will be done...................

(and its coming)

Already no lead in D-8, D-9, D-10 for deer.

If you don't reload, you can get Barnes or don't hunt. Especially if you have a 45-70, etc. (they don't make none lead factory loads)

CA will make hunting a very rich man's sport. Then they will go after target shooters.

Pretty soon -- you guessed it -- no guns

Only cops and criminals...................

Chico, that is why I have stocked up on ammo for my AR-15 and my Ruger Mini-14 off and on over the past 10+ years. But I just couldn't bring myself to buy much ammo for that Calico M960 I bought.  

OB -  With the ever expanding ban on lead, the stamping of primers requirement (firing pin law), the CA  "Drop Test", the proposed restrictions on purchasing more than 50 cartridges (of any kind) per month, and myriad other proposed restrictions on not only guns but ammo and components for reloading......

In CA hunting, plinking, target -- just shooting -- will be a rich man's only sport.

Already numerous guns are not available in CA due to the cost for manufacturers to produce them for legal sale here........ (Drop Test, etc.) so guns will become prohibitively expensive in CA. They will start on ammo next.

There are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. Someday if the Libs have their way, no one will own guns in CA except -- you got it -- cops and criminals and a few really rich people. So it won't really matter what SCOTUS rules.

And OB, I hope your FMJ  AR rounds don't have a lead core or you will be breaking the law every time you shoot one. They better be all copper.

I know Chico. I bought the guns back in the 90's when the assault rifle laws were being passed. With the current laws, I can't even sell them in this state anymore, without a lot of restrictions. I guess my son will get them when I die.

And if I ever have a need to fire any of my guns to protect my home or family, the last thing I will be worried about is what the bullets are made of.

I will agree with that 100%. If I lived up where you did, and not in this gang infested town, our priorities just might be different. And don't tell anyone, but I have a lot of ground squirrels  in my back yard, so I get a lot of critter practice too. :)

Alright Chico, how is bullet regulation un-Constitutional?

Lib  Matt   that could be our next fight to win

When they demand  we only use Plastic or water Bullets

I know a friend that has a friend and is related to another friend that knows this friend that kills Condors

The Hell with Anti Freeze  drink'in lead eating  street sitting Condors   and Liberals

Ron

ps     I don't know any names

I'm not putting words in your mouth Chico. I'm just wondering if you believe that the Second Amendment extends to "bullet freedoms", or not. Simple question. Yes or no. I'm actually curious to your take. Can't a guy ask a simple question around here anymore without being jumped on?

You see Mattloch -- Past being prologue, I think I know where you are heading in your prosaic, transparent would be guru to the other Libs fashion. However, were you to register bullets only, the brass (ejector marks, powder residues, etc.) would be out of the ID equation, as would  the powder (GSR can ID the type of powder utilized if fired close enough to surfaces), as well as the primer (stamped by your other supercilious law on firing pin stamping). The brass could even tell you things about the resizing die, etc. were it a reloaded round.

So, prior to setting up your all too obvious Lib Straw man Argument, you should first be specific. You are not speaking with one of your groupies now................. there are many of us on here whose actual hands on experience could fill a stadium while your would be akin to the veritable BB in a Boxcar.............

BTW, did you get that street sign name change effected for me yet?

So Mattloch -- Question --

Do you consider THIS unconstitutional? 

(relevancy check)

Apparently people being able to own some guns but not others is un-Constitutional (according to SCOTUS) Chico. I'm wondering if you also believe that any regulations on bullets (commercial sales, reloads, whatever) is also un-Constitutional, or if you (along with SCOTUS) believe that any regulation is automatically un-Constitutional. Bullets v cartridges is like handguns v rifles.
 

Seeing as how we have limits on free speech (fire in a theater, threatening speech, etc.), I find it hard to believe that the individual "right" to own guns is uniquely (and completely) free from regulation. But the question about ammunition is actually not explicit (as it is for possessing "firearms") within the Constitution.

Mattloch - Would not it naturally follow that the ammunition specific to the firearm (it is ostensibly good for no other purpose) fall under the same general rubric (as far as constitutionality to own), as the firearm for which it is designed?

It is partially for this reason I wish you would quit utilizing the sophomoric term  "bullets"

The bullet is just a component of the cartridge (which is designed for a specific class of firearms. The bullet (say 30 cal) can be utilized in a myriad of 30 cal weapons, with muzzle velocities and other characteristics that are vastly different. A 30 cal bullet can be utilized in loadings for some old cowboy single shot handguns with MV's of around 600 fps all the way up to 7.62 mini-guns with rates of fire around 4,000 rounds per minute and MV's of around 3,000 fps.

The right to own a firearm should necessarily attach to the ammunition it is designed to fire. If not the firearm is useless and the right to own said firearm is rendered moot.

Liberals will skin a cat in more ways than one.

If they will have a hard time attacking the emotionally charged issue of owning a gun, they will then just go for the concomitant ammunition.

Its just another Lib tactic, much like the CA "Drop Test", Firing Pin Stamping, magazine limitations, Assault Weapons Ban, etc.

A multi-faceted approach by the Libs to make gun ownership so expensive and onerous-difficult, that potential gun owners will finally just give up.

It is all fairly transparent.

Ah Chico, but the First Amendment's protection of free speech was recently limited by this Administration by creating "free speech zones", keeping speakers away from their intended audience. If you have the right of free speech, but are limited to speak freely only in your own home, it seems to me you hardly have the "right" to free speech at all.
 

I use the "sophomoric" term "bullets" in a generic sense. If you want to get anal on it, pucker up. I'm trying to engage you in dialog about the practical limits that may be placed on firearms after yesterday's ruling. If you want to puff out your chest and say "I know more than you do" about firearms, go ahead. I guess it was my mistake in trying to talk to you like an adult, instead of the anal-retentive puerile child that you are making yourself out to be.

Words mean things Mattloch.

You choose to be specific and require same only when it suits you.

Actually speaking of puerile and anal-retentive......... you could be an SNL character (pipe and all)

Obviously if you ban the thing that makes a gun a gun (boollets in the vernacular), then you have effectively banned the gun itself.

That is what the SCOTUS decision said about trigger locks (which invalidates every "safety" law in the country). So you also believe that every regulation, from banning lead to primer markings, are also un-Constitutional (because it makes it harder to own and operate a gun)?
 

Have you actually read the decision? Scalia believes that the Second Amendment is there to protect us "from tyranny". Which means we not only have the "right" to defend ourselves from people breaking into our homes, but gives us the "right" of parity with the government. Which means the decision makes illegal all regulations against machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, main battle tanks, and B-52s. And any obstruction to that "right" not individually removed through due process (restraining orders, insanity, prior convictions) is un-Constitutional. Which means every gang member and hood rat with no prior convictions can buy any number of weapons they choose, anytime, and the SCOTUS says you can't stop them. Does that make you feel more safe, or less safe?

The SCOTUS decision just removed any barriers to a personal arms race in every neighborhood in the nation.

There aren't many times when I agree with Scalia, but the last seven years have suggested to me that occasionally you *DO* have to shoot the government officers.  That no one has done so indicates to me a failure of that theory, however.  Private ownership of guns did nothing to prevent the tyranny of the Bush/Cheney years.

Have YOU read it Mattloch? You may think you have. That is not what he said.

I can disregard RF's puffery but your interpretation of just the Scalia opinion is more than a stretch.

But then, who on here will ever call you on it?

He said nothing to invalidate the Title II or III regs.............

 I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th

Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.

Scalia said in the habeas corpus case that anyone writing 70 pages of opinion is just blowing smoke to try to justify a bad decision.

.

Guess his 64-page opinion was *JUST* right.