ipscshooter

There are constitutional issues which will likely be addressed in the Court's opinion which will reach far beyond just DC.

It takes more than just an act of Congress to pass an Amendment. They could pass a law, but, such a law could be changed on a whim, if the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment as only protecting "militias." Hopefully, there are enough conservative justices that they will properly interpret the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual rather than collective right. This is why everyone should vote for McCain rather than whichever of the two Socialist candidates the Democrat party nominates. He'll be far more likely to nominate justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

Harry3142

I recently got onto one of the Barack Obama websites (there are quite a few) to see what his attitude toward gun ownership was. What I found out has me conerned, due to the HSUS (a rabid antihunting group) having announced that they are backing him.

Some of you may remember the armor-piercing bullet bill which Reagan vetoed. I wondered what all the fuss was about at that time, since my information concerning this bullet was that it was military ordnance and therefore not available to the civilian populace anyway, in spite of what Lethal Weapon III showed. But I was also a member of the NRA at that time (and have rejoined this organization again recently), and was sent a report of what that bill really was trying to ban.

Antihunting groups, and the politicians they have in their pockets, added other bullets to those that were to be outlawed. Along with those that were specifically designed as armor-piercing bullets, all other bullets above a certain power were to be declared as illegal, irregardless oftheir content andthe purpose for their having been manufactured. According to the NRA,this would have effectively banned all hunting rifle bullets, and therefore put an end to hunting. Reagan realized this and promptly vetoed the bill because of it.

Barack Obama has already stated that he intends to ban armor-piercing bullets and semiautomatic firearms as part of his presidency. Be prepared, because with his already being supported by antihunters, we will probably find ourselves again fighting for our right to hunt. But this time, if he is elected, we will be fighting against not only the groups, but also a president who, either through naivete or deliberate collusion, is in league with them.

eldeguello

You are absolutely correct, this case deals with ONLY the current D.C. prohibition on handgun ownership. HOWEVER, IF the Supreme Court rules that the ownership of firearms by individual citizens, and NOT just by members of Government organized militias,is what the Second Amendment protects, the decision becomes a precedent that any aggrieved citizen could use toinvalidate any and all laws at local, county, or state level that had a comparable effect in preventing citizens from possessing arms. This is the reason why all the anti's are so distressed that the Court may find that the 2nd Amendment makes the D.C. law invalid....... Such a decision would, in effect, put all future would-be gun-baners out of business.....

Alsatian

Indeed. And it is more extensive than just appointing supreme court justices, the president also appoints federal court judges, and remember it wastwo federal appeals court judges that ruled the DC ban unconstitutional on appeal (2-1) that has now led to Washington DC appealing to the US supreme court. This is actually one of the main reasons for gun owners to vote for a Republican candidate versus a Democrat -- the Republican is much more likely to appoint originalist judges and Democrats are much more likely to appoint activist judges that are going to trample the second amendment.

eldeguello

Naturally, those proposing this "armor piercing" ban would have outlawed ANY load that would penetrate a specified thickness of body armor, and therefore prohibit damn near every sporting rifle over .22 rimfire.

However, I do wonder where you got the idea that cvivilains had no access to AP loads. After WWII, there were just tons of U.S. Cal. .30 M2 ball ammo dumped on the surplus market that anyone could purchase, and at least half of this stuff was the "substitute" M2 ball round which was loaded with the black-tip AP bullets. ANYONE could buy it. Many did. It was actually a bit more accurate on average than the M2 stuff with 152-grain lead-core bullets.

I don't know how much of this ammo is still for sale in civilian trade channels, but I do know that some of my acquaintances had a lot of it in the past..... Now the way I read current Federal law concerning "armor-piercing" ammunition, what is prohibited arre bullets "designed for or intended to be fired from a HANGUN", not a rifle. So the M2 AP stuff is still legal at the federal level. But it is probably illegal in places like the severalPeoples Republics of North America(ie., CA, MA,NJ, etc.)

Harry3142

eldequello-

Thanks for the info. I have talked with three gun stores in this area(different outfits) and they tell me that they no longer even carry handgun bullets that are steel-jacketed, only copper-jacketed.

I suspect that if the armor-piercing bullet ban bill does come up again, it will again be a smokescreen for the antihunters to use in order to ban all hunting by outlawing the bullets used in hunting. If we get a president in office that is sympathetic to them (or in their pocket) they just might succeed.

eldeguello

I believe any bullet would penetrate body armor, if driven fast enough!! MOST handguns won't be capable of it!!

BigTiny

There is presently a ban on certain armor-piercing bullets. The law passed in 1986. If I am not mistaken, it applies only to loose bullets, not loaded carts. That's because our lawmakers don't know the difference between them. That right there should tell us a lot.

eldeguello

http://nssf.org/legal/links/corruption.cfm

CalHunter

A few things come to mind. First, even a 5-4 decision in our favor is not likely to be reversed by another SC composition due to stare decisis (it's bad juju to keep reversing previously decided cases). 2nd, the DC lawyers' argument that the 2nd amendment refers to a state's right to arm a militia is historically defective in that all able bodied males over 17 were considered to make up a state's militia pool and each person was expected to supply their own weapon. In such a system, it obviously benefits the state if each able bodied person owns more than one weapon and that at least some of those weapons are capable of being used as military small arms (can anybody say assault weapons??). This case should get decided in our favor and should actually create a lot of state's ancillary cases due to the favorable ruling.