On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I haven't read the dissenting opinions, but I think they more > felt that local laws could dictate ownership rights rather than "ban" > guns. I'm all for state's rights, but it is a core of our democracy that no state can make a law that is in direct violation of federal statute....especially if that statute is derived directly from the Constitution. It's never black and white, or "crystal clear" to use your term......but allowing local laws to potentially supersede a guaranteed Constitutional freedom...is probably not a very good dissenting opinion, no matter how they worded it. Further the ruling didn't say anything other than the 2nd gives > a homeowner a federal right to use a gun. A good ruling, but one that > makes nothing clear. Well, it makes it clear you can't out-and-out ban gun ownership....so it does settle SOMETHING. Your reading of it seems to make both sides crystal clear while mine > has both sides very hazy. It's hazy alright.....just thank the FSM for Justice Kennedy. -- He tells me believe in Jesus Steals the money from my hands ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:263194 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
