Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Both sides file appeals over fee award in DC gun case [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)77. Didn't they?
" This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right to keep arms and a separate right to bear arms. Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment."
I agree that it doesn't protect things like concealed carry, but it MUST protect the right of individuals to retain firearms within their own homes.
I agree that it doesn't protect things like concealed carry, but it MUST protect the right of individuals to retain firearms within their own homes.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

I guess that means a state could start ignoring the Thirteenth Amendment if they wanted to, yes? n/t
PavePusher
Feb 2012
#37
You're gonna whine and bitch about living in DC and not having voting rights in every thread?
rl6214
Feb 2012
#72
*Again* with the genetic fallacy. Anyway, it doesn't matter-rights are rights.
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#19
Apparently Mr. Heller wasn't supposed to assume the Constitution applies everywhere.
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#16
DC has good cause for complaint. That doesn't legitimize its stance on guns.
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#29
In your view, are there any *other* SC decisions that shouldn't apply to DC?
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#33
Who said "sell"? Rent it out. Also, as I stated before: "Amendment Process".
PavePusher
Feb 2012
#58
If DC had recognized his rights to begin with, you'd have no legal costs to complain about.
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#14
DC's legit beef about lack of representation isn't a "Get Out Of Recognizing Constitutional Rights..
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#25
Virginians apparently didn't want interracial marriages in 'their' state.
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2012
#31
"not one single gun dealer is independently operating a gun store on private property in DC."
HALO141
Feb 2012
#70
Because some yahoo filed a law suit that got the 5 right wing Justices to vote the NRA way.
Hoyt
Feb 2012
#66
Stevens and the other three who agreed with his dissent didn't buy into the NRA's view.
Hoyt
Feb 2012
#76
I am fine with that. Keep them in your homes - although with some restrictions on numbers and type.
Hoyt
Feb 2012
#78
The 2nd doesn't appear to allow for that, and the dissent leaned heavily upon Miller.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2012
#79