JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Gonzales Vs Raich 2005, United States vs Stewart 2006, and the 2008 9th District case vs Montana for Montana's firearm freedom act; all have been used to determine that the Federal Government have authority in regulating intrastate firearms commerce, and that Fed gun control laws supersedes State laws; as well as (ab)using the Federal Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause
Yes, and there is earlier case law that sets legal standards, not limited to gun control. Although the case was about concealed weapons. Namely, State v. Workman, decided Nov. 21, 1891. Way before contemporary liberal activism. Operative phrase:

"...we may still conclude that by law to regulate a conceded right is not necessarily to infringe the same."

US v. Miller, 1939, ruled that citizen firearms do not have to be part of the body of a militia, but must be those used for common, lawful purposes.

Getting back around to more or less current times, in DC v. Heller, 2008, Justice Scalia (who wrote the majority opinion), said:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Justice Scalia died while on a hunting trip, so I don't think he was a gun-hater.

Here on NWFA, we sometimes read comments that under 2A, "anything should be allowed." Just saying, there is a long legal tradition that places some reasonable restraint on the amendment.
 
Yes, and there is earlier case law that sets legal standards, not limited to gun control. Although the case was about concealed weapons. Namely, State v. Workman, decided Nov. 21, 1891. Way before contemporary liberal activism. Operative phrase:

"...we may still conclude that by law to regulate a conceded right is not necessarily to infringe the same."

US v. Miller, 1939, ruled that citizen firearms do not have to be part of the body of a militia, but must be those used for common, lawful purposes.

Getting back around to more or less current times, in DC v. Heller, 2008, Justice Scalia (who wrote the majority opinion), said:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Justice Scalia died while on a hunting trip, so I don't think he was a gun-hater.

Here on NWFA, we sometimes read comments that under 2A, "anything should be allowed." Just saying, there is a long legal tradition that places some reasonable restraint on the amendment.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right!
 
Yes, and there is earlier case law that sets legal standards, not limited to gun control. Although the case was about concealed weapons. Namely, State v. Workman, decided Nov. 21, 1891. Way before contemporary liberal activism. Operative phrase:

"...we may still conclude that by law to regulate a conceded right is not necessarily to infringe the same."

US v. Miller, 1939, ruled that citizen firearms do not have to be part of the body of a militia, but must be those used for common, lawful purposes.

Getting back around to more or less current times, in DC v. Heller, 2008, Justice Scalia (who wrote the majority opinion), said:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Justice Scalia died while on a hunting trip, so I don't think he was a gun-hater.

Here on NWFA, we sometimes read comments that under 2A, "anything should be allowed." Just saying, there is a long legal tradition that places some reasonable restraint on the amendment.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right!
Everything Hitler did, was legal at the time, in that place. Not right, horrific certainly but still legal.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top