Re: Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:08:18 -0500, The Lone Weasel
<loneweasel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Natman <nat_mann@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:25:55 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>> <loneweasel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>>Rodney Long <rdlong@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>> Rodney Long <rdlong@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It also changes everything to "Shall issue" instead of
>>>>>> "may issue", no longer can a city or state keep someone
>>>>>> from being armed, unless the states "prove" them
>>>>>> mentally ill or a felon, it is no longer just the rich
>>>>>> and famous (like in many cities) that can defend
>>>>>> themselves 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry to tell you son, but Scalia says bans on concealed
>>>>> carry are perfectly constitutional.
>>>> 
>>>> Well guess what, most of the country has conceal carry
>>>
>>>But now they know it's nothing like a constitutional right.
>>>
>>>That'll make a big difference to voters knowing the NRA
>>>lied to them.  State legislators have an opening to kick
>>>the gunlobby out of their stathouses.
>> 
>> Yes, Heller does clearly state that Concealed Carry does
>> not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. 
>> 
>> It's a great decision, not a perfect one. 
>> 
>> Nevertheless, CCW is still legal in most states. 
>
>But the NRA's selling point was that you had an unlimited 
>natural right to have guns and to carry them secretly.
>
>In fact, the NRA's interpretation of Missouri's constitutional 
>ban on concealed weapons, which was taken up by Rush 
>Limbaugh's cousin on the Missouri Supreme Court, is now shown 
>to be defective, so now the prohibition just as the delegates 
>framed it can be exercised with no questions asked.

There is a difference between *promoting* CCW and claiming it is
covered by the Second Amendment. However, just for discussion purposes
let's say that the NRA did maintain that CCW was covered by the 2nd.
Heller merely proves, at worst, that the NRA was mistaken in their
interpretation. That's not **lying**. If it were, then you were lying
for years about "collective right" and "militia context". 

Hmm, perhaps that's a bad example. 
>
>And that was after Missourians had already voted down CCW.

In other words, nothing changed. 
>
>> Now how does your twisted mind turn that into "the NRA lied
>> to them" and "State legislators have an opening to kick the
>> gunlobby out of their stathouses."?
>
>Now nobody believes the NRA's claims about the Constitutional 
>necessity of uber-liberal gun rights; now the citizens of the 
>several states know they won't be dragged into federal courts 
>to defend bans on CCW, or on "dangerous and unusual" weapons 
>like military weapons, and they can require licensing and 
>registration as a source of data for ballistic databases, 
>including those based on microstamping.

One last time:

"Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced
arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will
satisfy his prayer for relief and DOES NOT ADDRESS the licensing
requirement."

DC v Heller, page 3, emphasis added.

What part of DOES NOT ADDRESS is beyond your capacity to understand?