Friday, July 09, 2010

Brace yourselves for “reasonable regulation”: "How do you feel about licensing gun owners, registering all of their firearms, requiring training in order to own a firearm, mandatory liability insurance for every gun owner, limiting citizens to owning a single handgun for personal protection, background checks for all firearms transactions and mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases? Are these ‘reasonable regulations’ that pass the constitutional smell test? (Be sure and offer an opinion below.)In the 48 hours that followed Monday’s historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court … various anti-gun newspaper editorials have essentially provided the gun prohibition lobby’s definition of ‘reasonable regulation.’”

If you liked Mcdonald v. Chicago, you’ll love Benson v. Chicago: "The main difference between McDonald and Benson may be how one-sided the new lawsuit is, based on the precedent set in McDonald. The four plaintiffs, Brett Benson, Raymond Sledge, Kenneth Pacholski and Kathryn Tyler, are challenging the new ordinance on eight separate counts based on their various experiences as businessmen, educators, and residents of Chicago, while the IL Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR) are challenging the ordinance’s total prohibition on firing ranges and gun shops within city limits.”

McDonald, gun ownership, and the non-violent restoration of safer streets: "In Part I, I wrote about the spiritual reawakening of Independence and the epiphany that Independence itself serves to discredit government programs which operate as a poor substitute for the armed citizen. I used the word ‘impeaches’ for those boondoggle programs. In Part II and Part III, let us look at how this is done non-violently to further impeach the anti-gun hysteria and the smear which the left is offering as its best evidence against the armed citizen. … I often speak of the ubiquitous armed citizen, the idea that armed adults are in such sufficient numbers that thugs begin to notice … This ubiquitous armed citizen becomes a ubiquitous deterrent of crime for both business and pleasure.”

PA: Gun rights advocates get new energy in their push for a “castle doctrine”: "Gun rights advocates got a monumental boost last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled local governments can’t ban guns. Now, Pennsylvania gun rights advocates are aiming at their next target: giving gun owners the right to fire rather than flee when threatened in their homes or cars or, ideally, any public place where they have a right to be. The court decision gives new energy to the push for a so-called ‘castle doctrine’ in Pennsylvania. … Gun rights advocates further feel the ruling adds firepower to their challenges of assorted gun restrictions, such as bans on guns in municipal buildings and parks.”

No comments: