|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 27, 2011, 02:12 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2009
Location: Shepherd, MI
Posts: 128
|
You know what confuses me the most? When we all applied for the CCW, we were checked out thru various Law Enforcment agencies to make sure we were law abiding citizens without any criminal history whatsoever. So it stands to reason that we should be the first to be trusted (over the unscrutinized at least). If we don't have a history of flying off the handle, have never commited a felony, have never hurt anyone, then what would make our own government distrust our legally licensed possession of a legal firearm anywhere?
Oh, wait...I forgot...we are discussing the US government right? My Bad.... ...still trying to reember the last time I had any business in a Federal Building. Naval Discharge in 86 I think.
__________________
Vote Libertarian or QUIT COMPLAINING! |
July 27, 2011, 03:46 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
You will have to establish standing to pursue action in court. Showing actual harm is a hard bar to pass. There are cases were the consequences of a violation are so significant you may get a court to allow things to proceed, but it is NOT an easy battle. Things like the recent 2nd amendment cases require very carefully chosen plaintiffs who can demonstrate some level of harm from the existing law. Theoretical harm does not sway courts very far, as in "I could get robbed." |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|