no i don't think i'd ever be surprised at how expensive the government made something

but i know the actual costs of the background check and a reasonable labor fee would be nowhere close to $1000

6/27/2008 12:55:09 PM

They would have an awfully difficult time proving that it costs $1000 per person to do a background check, especially given that NICS is already in place. Most of what they would be looking for would be contained in NICS, so they would only be allowed to claim costs above and beyond that and there's not much more I can think of that isn't already on the list:

Quote :

"A person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether or not sentence is imposed. This includes misdemeanor offenses with a potential term of imprisonment in excess of two years, whether or not sentence was imposed. Persons who are fugitives of justice; for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant. An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year, or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year. A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial. An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non-immigrant who does not qualify for the exceptions under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(y); for example, not have possession of a valid hunting license. A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces. A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship. The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders. A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim. A person under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

6/27/2008 12:56:06 PM

It all depends on the agency that does the background checks. Also, different counties and different states have different requirements.

6/27/2008 1:14:41 PM

I'm very glad they decided the way they did. It really bothers me that it was split by party line though. I just don't understand how democrats can get mad at neo-cons for violating the constitution on a nearly daily basis and yet want to violate it themselves when it comes to this issue.

6/27/2008 2:10:00 PM

Just ignore the two Republicans who voted for the gun ban.

6/27/2008 2:10:37 PM

?

The article I read on CNN about this decision said it was a 5/4 decision, split on party lines.

Is that wrong?

6/27/2008 2:12:12 PM

SC justices are not affiliated.

6/27/2008 2:15:24 PM

Souter and Stevens are Republican nominees

6/27/2008 2:15:57 PM

Wait, hang on. I had to go through a background check to get my pistol permit here in NC, but the rules have always been a little hazy for me. Is it easy to get the regular permit, but harsher to get the concealed carry permit? I mean, handguns have always had to be registered through the permits for sale and registration here, so how is this a different thing that DC is considering it?

6/27/2008 2:16:16 PM

^^^ they are "unaffiliated" but it's obvious what their political views are considering who they are appointed by and also their previous decisions.

6/27/2008 2:18:28 PM

the pistol permit is simply a permit to purchase a handgun. i haven't lived in NC in several years, or bought a handgun in NC in a couple of years before that, but if I remember correctly, they aren't REGISTERED. it's just a purchase permit.

the CCP requires a more extensive background check, a couple day long class, etc. it's a good deal more involved.

6/27/2008 2:19:14 PM

My earlier comment about this was lost at the bottom of a page, but has anyone heard the interviews with big city mayors?

These people don't seem to give a crap about the constitutionality of gun bans.

6/27/2008 2:29:53 PM

^^^^ when you want to purchase a firearm in North Carolina, you go to your sheriff office and request a permit to purchase a pistol. They do not need to know anything about the handgun, only that you want to purchase one. Once the background check is complete, you are issued your permit. This is as far as the state goes.

ANY firearm purchased from a FFL dealer will fill out ATF Form 4473 and be subject to an instant background check. The 4473 will involve a record of the firearm's information, to include serial number, and your personal information. If you ask me, this amounts to a federal registration, but technically the BATFE is not supposed to retain those records after a certain period of time. This is the federal side of the purchase.

Now, in the state of North Carolina, if you have a CCL, then you do not need to request individual handgun permits from your sheriff's office. Your CCL acts as a permit to buy. The CCL is both more rigorous and expensive than the regular handgun permit.

Hope this helps.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ^ no I didn't. Links?]

6/27/2008 2:33:05 PM

Just listen to NPR, I guess.

The mayors of Chicago and ATL, in particular. They're not even engaging in the actual constitutional argument.

It's a bit unnerving to hear a constitutional right debated -purely- on its practicality.

6/27/2008 2:38:22 PM

Quote :

"they are "unaffiliated" but it's obvious what their political views are considering who they are appointed by and also their previous decisions."

By their previous decisions yes...

By their appointer, no.

It depends on the congress the appointer has.

6/27/2008 2:43:05 PM

Quote :

"It's a bit unnerving to hear a constitutional right debated -purely- on its practicality. "

Yep, and that's pretty much par for the course with the 2nd Amendment and lots of the rest of the Constitution (enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment most of all).

6/27/2008 2:55:32 PM

Quote :

"By their previous decisions yes... By their appointer, no. It depends on the congress the appointer has."

John Paul Stevens was 98-0 confirmed.

6/27/2008 6:19:11 PM

the mayor of atlanta is a stupid bitch that has run the city onto the ground

everything that she says is retarded

6/27/2008 6:48:28 PM

on a slightly related note, apparently Clark Howard is going to run for mayor of Atlanta. At least that is the rumor I heard.

6/27/2008 7:01:35 PM

Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney. Its obvious where his alliances lie, especially after Bush v. Gore

6/27/2008 9:24:11 PM

Clark Howard needs to run for President.

Talk about fiscal responsibility.

OBAMA/HOWARD 2008

6/27/2008 9:24:56 PM

oOoOohhh. I like that idea. Even better, both candidates name Clark Howard as their Vice President and just go head to head.

I cannot fathom CH damaging a ticket unless he has some really creepy sex shit in the closet. I mean c'mon, the guy is a lovable nerd who just wants to save you money, how can you go wrong?

6/27/2008 10:54:42 PM

Quote :

"Also people should have the right to protect themselves against the State if and when the time ever comes."

And how are they going to do that with a handgun when the state has tear-gas, f-22s, tanks, m-16s, and the like?

6/27/2008 11:58:30 PM

When the average gun count per household in america is 12. Multiply that by 300,000,000 people and you have a pretty damned lethal force.


The government should be scared of its citizens. Not the other way around.

6/28/2008 12:00:01 AM

^^ Ask the Iraqis.

6/28/2008 12:01:03 AM

an f-22 can't be in the air at all times either. but yeah, i don't think that we'd be able to necessarily defeat the army, but we could keep it on its toes a la every insurgency that has been tried in the past half-century.

[Edited on June 28, 2008 at 12:01 AM. Reason : this is sad. three responses within a minute on a friday night]

6/28/2008 12:01:21 AM

you don't have to defeat them in open battle, you just have to defeat the political will of the force driving the military.

6/28/2008 12:02:06 AM

haha. the iraqis. If we wanted to level iraq, there would be nothing a handgun could do to stop it...

Quote :

"If Cho had only been able to purchase a long gun, he would have never made it anywhere on campus without being spotted. I support the right to bear arms, just not handguns."

Quote :

"I'd rather laws be made (or enforced) so that people with histories of mental problems couldnt buy guns. then VA Tech would have never happened."

If only the university had kicked that asshole off campus for being mentally disturbed, AS WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO, then none of that would have happened, either.

Quote :

"He sees the second amendment as not recognizing an individual right of gun ownership, but a right of the state to use its citizenry as soldiers. The state doesn't have any rights, only individuals do. "

Even scarier, he sees it as the state can use its citizenry, and the individual has no rights. That's horrendous.

Quote :

"I'm sorry but as much as the circle of self pat of the backs is going on here, is doesn't convince me that America is safer. The fact that handguns are now accessible on the streets of inner cities, for the sake of it, just doesn't make me believe this was a well thought out position."

Handguns were already accessible on the streets of inner cities. Now it's just legal for innocent, law-abiding citizens to have them.

Quote :

"the fact that the First Amendment doesn't protect yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater"

I would argue that the First Amendment actually does protect yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It does not, however, protect you from being prosecuted for the consequences of your action. In much the same way, simply having the right to any kind of gun wouldn't absolve you of guilt when you use said gun in commission of a crime.

6/28/2008 12:20:53 AM

Quote :

"If we wanted to level iraq, there would be nothing a handgun could do to stop it..."

Again, it isn't a question of physical capability, it is a question of political will.

Sure, if there was a rebellion in the United States the president could carpet bomb the geographic area in which it began, in theory, but does he have the political capital / will to do so?

6/28/2008 12:23:37 AM

the 2nd Amendment was not written with "political capital" in mind. It was written for the circumstance where even political capital isn't enough of a deterrent. So, yes, it is a matter of physical capability. Because the 2nd Amendment was meant to be the ultimate safety-net. To completely prevent that physical capability.

You are correct, we don't have the political will to bomb Iraq into the stone-age, though, but that is irrelevant.

6/28/2008 12:29:42 AM

it's really not.

why would a military carpet bomb the country it's trying to maintain?

6/28/2008 12:35:10 AM

why would a tyrant not utterly destroy a village in order to get his message across to the rest of the nation? What the hell do you think Sherman's "March to the Sea" was?

The irrelevance of this, though, is still obvious. The 2nd Amendment is a protection against a tyrant, who, by definition, cares nothing about political capital. By the time people are willing to take up arms against their own government, it should be fucking obvious that all political capital has been spent, wouldn't you agree?

6/28/2008 12:38:33 AM

^^^ *Bangs head* You're missing my point. What I am saying is that a determined resistance could in fact defeat a larger army if the political will behind that army could be ground down. That is exactly what occurred in the American Revolution, I can't believe that the founding fathers would be blind to that fact.

You're absolutely right in stating that a determined Army with superior technology could wipe out a force of irregulars in a relatively short time, the second amendment merely gives those irregulars the ability to resist, hopefully, long enough for their political cause to triumph.

Even a tyrant has to be followed, his political capital may not be as elastic as it is in a democracy, but even a despot can run out of friends.

If you didn't get it that time, tough titties, I'm going to bed.

6/28/2008 12:39:17 AM

I see what you are getting at, but I would argue that handguns and hunting rifles alone would not give irregulars any hope of resisting long enough. And the iraqis have far more than handguns and hunting rifles. They might not have tanks, but they do have RPGs, anti-aircraft weaponry, and other explosives. You'd be hard-pressed to find that kind of weaponry on the streets of America. And that is due mainly to wearing down the 2nd Amendment.

6/28/2008 12:43:30 AM

Quote :

"Handguns were already accessible on the streets of inner cities. Now it's just legal for innocent, law-abiding citizens to have them."

Ding Ding Ding

Glad someone has a brain.

6/28/2008 1:06:46 AM

Quote :

"I would argue that the First Amendment actually does protect yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It does not, however, protect you from being prosecuted for the consequences of your action. In much the same way, simply having the right to any kind of gun wouldn't absolve you of guilt when you use said gun in commission of a crime."

This does not get to what the meaning of a First Amendment protection is - which is immunity for speech under any "protected speech" class. Which means you can't be prosecuted for using speech.

However some classes of speech fall outside of this. Speech that poses an imminent harm to others, for one - like, for instance, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The First Amendment guarantees you protection from prosecution when it's something like political speech - when it's not "protected speech" however, that qualified immunity no longer applies. This is what "First Amendment protections" actually mean.

I get that you're trying to make a strict textualist argument that we never prosecute for speech, but just the consequences of it, but it's not really how it works in the real world. The reason we can pass laws about causing panic through speech and still get around the First Amendment is because doing such doesn't count as "protected speech."

Think of it this way - the alternative could be worse; it'd be pretty easy to pin spurious "consequences" to unpopular but currently protected speech. I'll leave coming up with an example as an exercise for the reader.

Meanwhile, tying this back to the Second Amendment - this kind of qualified protection is how the Court reasons that you don't get to own a Howitzer or a tactical nuclear bomb. You might argue from a strict legal standpoint it's how you use such weapons that makes all the difference, but the fact is, we routinely divide categories of "protected" and "not protected" in the Bill of Rights. Much like Scalia points out in his majority opinion.

6/28/2008 1:07:29 AM

Quote :

" And how are they going to do that with a handgun when the state has tear-gas, f-22s, tanks, m-16s, and the like?"

too bad you do not have a right to tanks, f-22s, etc. Since after all, the amendment only applies to weapons that a militia would use. Which is to say weapons that would be stored in the house of abled body males, which is not a tank or f-22.

6/28/2008 12:55:08 PM

you gotta have balls to tell people they cant carry handguns from behind your armed guards

6/29/2008 12:06:14 AM

The people who advocate the right to own guns are doing it because they consider it to be a right, and interpreting the constitution without looking at the historical circumstances at the time the constitution was written. (They think that guns are used to kill people trying to get inside your home)

The people who advocate gun control are the ones who interpret the constitution as best they can, with the historical facts and political and social details of the time period. They know that back then, the US was a young nation without a reliable military that would probably need the help of volunteer civilians (i.e. militia) to help fight against a foreign invader. (They think that guns are used to support the military in need)

I'm sure that if the Founding Fathers wanted us to have the right to own (and probably kill other civilians) with guns, then they would have just said, "The people have the right to own guns." period. It's logical, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to add something to the constitution just because they want it.

Now, does our military need our help? They're fighting a war, but it's not even on American soil. Well damn. I guess if you want a gun in your hand, you can enlist to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and help the military. Other than that, there's no reason, nor is there a right to own a gun.

If you want to own a gun, that's fine, but the correct, American way that the Founding Fathers said it would be is to add an Amendment to the Constitution, not interpret it in some dumbass redneck way so you can feel safe around blacks.

6/29/2008 4:03:02 PM

Two problems with your "historical" interpretation (out of it's many problems)

1) The bill of rights and the founding fathers did not seek to GIVE any rights to the people. The only rights the Constitution GIVES is to the federal government.

2) They did say the people have the right to own guns, to wit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For that matter, they acknowledged that it was a preexisting right that the government shall have no authority to infringe upon.

I suggest you take some more history classes, and an english course or two wouldn't hurt.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 5:49 PM. Reason : more]

6/29/2008 5:47:28 PM

Quote :

"we routinely divide categories of "protected" and "not protected" in the Bill of Rights."

Translation: the Court regularly fudges the rest of the rights, so we can fudge this one too! Going back to the First Amendment, by the way, I would like to add that it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Somehow over the years that turned into the idea that, for example, local municipalities have to allow neo-Nazi protesters to march in their streets at great cost to taxpayers and public decency.

But I digress.

What the Second Amendment actually means is obviously up in the air. All this talk about the practical means to overthrow a government is ridiculous. For one thing, it's pretty obvious that overthrowing the government is usually a bad thing and there's no way we should enable it.

Most people aren't thinking very practically about this. We assume that everyone who would store arms "just in case" the government gets that bad are little modern-day Paul Reveres. In reality there are lots of crazy people and we really shouldn't give them the means to overthrow their own back yard, much less a legitimate sitting government.

So we know that in all practical terms owning any "real" arms is off the table. That leaves us with the question of self-defense.

This one sounds straight-forward. But in reality its not because the Second Amendment is an unforgiving master. Can anyone really argue that, for example, per the amendment's actual wording, that a thrice-convicted violent felon should not be allowed to own arms? Or even from some principle other than "the Court said so a few years back?"

There is this idea that citizens should be able to own hand guns for self-defense, and that will scare criminals shitless. It seems to me that if criminals know the citizens have hand guns, maybe they'll consider arming themselves with ... oh, I dunno .. AK-47s? And then what? The black market is more than one level deep, guys.

Personally I like gun ownership, and I think it should be allowed generally within reason, especially for sports. But the Second Amendment is plainly an anachronistic mess. For example, I would imagine that a well-regulated militia (or any effective means of defense) would also involve, oh I dunno, ... cars? But I don't see any provision in the Constitution guaranteeing an absolute right to bear automobiles.

My prediction is the Second Amendment will be flogged into something unrecognizable now that the courts have decided it's worth "clarifying." We were all better off when it was left alone, where we could use it to hearken back to an older time when minutemen fought redcoats and somehow relate it to our daily lives instead of ... actually having to interpret the damned thing in a practical sense!

6/30/2008 4:43:33 AM

Quote :

"Translation: the Court regularly fudges the rest of the rights, so we can fudge this one too!"

No, not at all. But are you really going to make the case that the Second Amendment authorizes you to own a tactical nuclear warhead, or the like? And I say this as someone who generally supports private gun ownership and opposes gun control.

The same goes for causing an immediate public harm. I'm fairly sure even the most generous constitutional scholar is not going to protect the use of your constitutional rights to create a public menace - either by creating a potentially deadly panic, releasing classified information, waving your AK like you just don't care, or owning a weapon whose very existence (I'm talking about the bomb here, to be clear) constitutes a menace.

Is it really fudging to say that Constitutional guarantees don't facilitate threatening direct, real harm to others?

As an aside, I would note, this is why laws running afoul of the First are typically interpreted under the strictest of scrutiny (well, aside from prior restraint):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

I think it gets to my point about protecting people from direct, real harm. Had I my druthers, the Second would be interpreted under similar scrutiny.

Quote :

"Going back to the First Amendment, by the way, I would like to add that it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Somehow over the years that turned into the idea that, for example, local municipalities have to allow neo-Nazi protesters to march in their streets at great cost to taxpayers and public decency."

Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that the First exists explicitly to protect "unpopular speech." You know, the kind people would otherwise try to put you in jail for.

If the cost of a free society is having the occasional neo-Nazi walk down the street and make an ass of himself, then so be it.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : Strict Scrutiny]

6/30/2008 12:28:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure that if the Founding Fathers wanted us to have the right to own (and probably kill other civilians) with guns, then they would have just said, "The people have the right to own guns." period. It's logical, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to add something to the constitution just because they want it."

Actually, that's EXACTLY what they said: "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." Anything else, is, in fact, adding something to the Constitution.

Quote :

"too bad you do not have a right to tanks, f-22s, etc. Since after all, the amendment only applies to weapons that a militia would use. Which is to say weapons that would be stored in the house of abled body males, which is not a tank or f-22."

If only the militia clause limited the right in the 2nd Amendment. We've already been through this, and you've failed to support your smug assertion, so get on with it, k?

Quote :

"This does not get to what the meaning of a First Amendment protection is - which is immunity for speech under any "protected speech" class. Which means you can't be prosecuted for using speech."

And I would argue that that is an incorrect application of the 1st Amendment. I'll admit to being ignorant to legal precedent on the issue, but it really doesn't matter to me. If X is a right, then X is a right. It doesn't mean that that right should protect me from any and all bad things that might happen as a result. If you take that approach, then what happens if I am a Nazi and I want to use my right of "free speech" to put a burning swastika in my front yard, which happens to be right in front of a nursing home for Jewish patients? Skokie aside, and other discussions about "intimidation" aside as well, your argument would suggest that I could not be prosecuted for such an act, because I was using my "free speech." You counter that such speech is not "protected," at which point I have to ask where is the word "protected" present in the 1st Amendment. Who is "adding things" to the Constitution now? No, I think it is much more practical to call something a right and say that it is a right, no matter what. It seems only rational to assert that consequences of using a right can and should be prosecutable, as the case may be, but that use of the right, itself, should not be.

Quote :

"Think of it this way - the alternative could be worse; it'd be pretty easy to pin spurious "consequences" to unpopular but currently protected speech. I'll leave coming up with an example as an exercise for the reader."

Humour me, by coming up with a few examples. Remember, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote :

"but the fact is, we routinely divide categories of "protected" and "not protected" in the Bill of Rights."

And again, who is adding things to the Constitution here. It sure as hell aint me.

Quote :

"The people who advocate the right to own guns are doing it because they consider it to be a right, and interpreting the constitution without looking at the historical circumstances at the time the constitution was written. (They think that guns are used to kill people trying to get inside your home) The people who advocate gun control are the ones who interpret the constitution as best they can, with the historical facts and political and social details of the time period. They know that back then, the US was a young nation without a reliable military that would probably need the help of volunteer civilians (i.e. militia) to help fight against a foreign invader. (They think that guns are used to support the military in need)"

How convenient that you poison the well by claiming that those with whom you disagree lack foresight while claiming great foresight and wisdom for those with whom you agree. Come on, man.

Quote :

"Somehow over the years that turned into the idea that, for example, local municipalities have to allow..."

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't one of the Reconstruction Amendments *cough*illegitimate*cough* make way for that by later being interpreted as meaning that protections originally granted from the Federal government were now granted from state and local governments, too? Man, you gotta love that Supreme Court overstepping its bounds, don't ya?

Quote :

"For one thing, it's pretty obvious that overthrowing the government is usually a bad thing and there's no way we should enable it."

Tell that to George Washington.

Quote :

"No, not at all. But are you really going to make the case that the Second Amendment authorizes you to own a tactical nuclear warhead, or the like?"

I sure as hell would say yes. Is it a good thing, I dunno, but that is definitely what I would say that it says. it does not, however, state that nuclear warheads should be 5.95 at wal-mart.

Quote :

"The same goes for causing an immediate public harm."

I'd like to see how simply uttering the words "kill whitey" causes any harm. It's what people do after the fact that really matters. Could that incite a riot? Sure. But, the crime here should be inciting a riot, NOT yelling "kill whitey." Anything more and I think it is a whittling away of basic human rights. I think trying to divine circumstances where it is "ok to use your rights" and "not ok to use your rights" is far more likely to result in tyranny and oppression than simply saying "here are your rights, don't fuck up while using them."

Few people need to be told "hey, you shouldn't yell 'kill whitey'," and while, yes, we do have racist assholes running around in this country, we should punish them when they actually do something that is illegal. What's that? A racist prick starts a riot by dragging a black guy down the street behind his truck yelling "fuck all you niggers!!!"? Well, let's punish his ass for murdering someone and for also inciting a riot. Don't punish him for yelling "fuck all you niggers!!!", because the guy was clearly breaking the law long before he got to that point.

At its core, for any circumstance where you are tempted to say that a right should be "limited due to immediate public harm," you can easily identify an actual crime that is completely separate from the use of the right which you say should be limited. Punish the fucking crime and the criminal, but leave the right alone.

7/2/2008 12:14:06 AM

Quote :

"Actually, that's EXACTLY what they said: "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." Anything else, is, in fact, adding something to the Constitution."

Except for the two proceeding clauses that are, you know, in the constitution. Ignoring them removes from the Constitution.

7/2/2008 11:18:13 AM

the Supreme Court seems to interpret the 2nd amendment just as aaronburro did

7/2/2008 11:22:13 AM

If you believe gun ownership to be the right of a militia, theres no reason I cant be a militia of one.

7/2/2008 11:48:24 AM

if you break into my house, my militia will shoot your ass

7/2/2008 12:32:36 PM

Quote :

"the Supreme Court seems to interpret the 2nd amendment just as aaronburro did"

Wrong.

Read the opinion of the court first. The Court spent a great deal of time on the meaning of militia.

Quote :

"If you believe gun ownership to be the right of a militia, theres no reason I cant be a militia of one."

militias are State (big S, not small) sponsored and controlled entities.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 12:37:24 PM

^ Actually, per the US Code (you know, federal law and all that) the militia includes all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45, including those not part of any organized militia including the national guard.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

So at the very least, every man between 17 and 45 has a right to bear arms. Thankfully the courts can read english and can see that the 2nd amendment applies to all.

7/2/2008 12:58:01 PM

Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment > nutsmackr's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

7/2/2008 1:03:13 PM