I followed a link from the Miami Herald story
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319490
to the www.gunlaws.com pages where I found a link to their Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) article
http://www.gunlaws.com/Decommissioning Scheme.htm
In this it mentions :
This existing law basically sucks because if I want to bicycle from here to Oregon and want to visit a few National Parks along the way, and also want to bring along a .22LR revolver for target shooting along the way, I can't do so, not even if the revolver is locked in a case in one pannier and the ammo is in the pannier on the other side of the bike (at least I don't think so if I understand things correctly as they stand currently).
So, assuming DC v. Heller works to decommission the DC law (probably improper usage of the word but I wanted to use it here anyway), would this then lead to lifting the ban on firearms within National Parks? I'm sure it would have to be challenged by someone, or retroactively challenged by reviving a previous conviction which if the law is found potentially unconstitutional then any convictions garnered under an unconstitutional law should be overturned (to my thinking).
I'm just getting out the soup ladel to get ready to stir the pot and looking for the cupboard the can of worms is in.
I'd quote the whole article, but don't want to run afoul of any copyright rules.
Comments?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=319490
to the www.gunlaws.com pages where I found a link to their Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) article
http://www.gunlaws.com/Decommissioning Scheme.htm
In this it mentions :
This approach is already working in National Parks where possession of a working gun subjects you to immediate federal arrest, confiscation of your property, and endless aggravation. No criminal act of any kind is required, just legal possession of personal property -- any firearm. However, a gun in pieces so it cannot be fired, locked in your car trunk is allowed. Interestingly, no statutory authority for this denial of civil rights can be found. And of course, statutory denial of civil rights would be unconstitutional on its face.
This existing law basically sucks because if I want to bicycle from here to Oregon and want to visit a few National Parks along the way, and also want to bring along a .22LR revolver for target shooting along the way, I can't do so, not even if the revolver is locked in a case in one pannier and the ammo is in the pannier on the other side of the bike (at least I don't think so if I understand things correctly as they stand currently).
So, assuming DC v. Heller works to decommission the DC law (probably improper usage of the word but I wanted to use it here anyway), would this then lead to lifting the ban on firearms within National Parks? I'm sure it would have to be challenged by someone, or retroactively challenged by reviving a previous conviction which if the law is found potentially unconstitutional then any convictions garnered under an unconstitutional law should be overturned (to my thinking).
I'm just getting out the soup ladel to get ready to stir the pot and looking for the cupboard the can of worms is in.
I'd quote the whole article, but don't want to run afoul of any copyright rules.
Comments?