might... could... I think that is the way...

All words to fall back on when the argument doesn't fit. You mentioned liability insurance. Now that doesn't fit. The example you use is called reckless endangerment.

b

All words to fall back on when the argument doesn't fit

Actually I used those words becasue the liability applies in cerrtain situations and not in others.
The victim has to prove that the person he is suing has acted in a way that created the harm done to the victim or contributed to the harm.

All that is situational. And therefore terms like might and could apply perfectly. Liability is not cut and dried . But, it can be very costly to companies or individuals who don't plan for the risk.

Bbauska, you should be appraised of the difference between criminal and civil laws. Reckless endangerment would be criminal and would require a criminal level of proof. Liability alone is civil, and uses a lower level of proof. As a result there is a big difference between the two.

Anyway, I never did find out how Heller would nullify the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban or a similar subsequent law.

and Ricky, if you can prove such carelessness, you CAN indeed sue someone in court. so what's the point? an insurance requirement is nothing but a restriction of ones rights, it probably will never be approved of course but if it were, it would be struck down almost immediately. Just because some idiot lawmaker attempts to pass a law does not mean it will pass judicial exam now does it? And this proposal, what about the hunters in New York State? This idiot lawmaker is from Brooklyn, he may never have SEEN a deer, he clearly has no idea of the damage they due in rural areas to crops and cars, to not be able to cull them through hunting does nothing to help poor little Bambi, it hurts the health of the herd in the long run. Typical shortsighted politician!

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/205203.pdf

Pretty interesting read on that very topic, Danivon. Heller II as it is called might be a compromise position.

freeman2 wrote:I think the real issue is how difficult can the government make it getting the permit? One would think, that consistent with Posner's opinion, that you could not prevent a person who has no criminal record, no mental health problems, and who could point to reasonable, individualized reasons for having the permit from carrying a gun in public. But how about if someone wants a permit but can give no reasons pertinent to their individualized safety (for example they live in a low-crime area and there is nothing about their background that would make more likely to be the victim of a crime than any other person.

New Jersey's law is that you must show proof of a specfic prior incident, i.e. mugging or domestic abuse, through an official police report, unless you are a law enforcement official. So just showing that you live in a high crime neighborhood would not cut it. The individual Judge Posner posited would not be able to get a permit to carry unless there is a police report showing (s)he had actually been mugged at some point in the past.

As for cert, it only takes 4 to grant cert. I can't see it being that hard to get 1 more.

Brad, reading that I note that it says that since Heller, State bans on assault weapons have been upheld after challenges on the 2nd Amendment and on other Constitutional issues.

Indeed, the last pages seem to indicate that a ban on assault weapons could be supported by Heller, depending on particular considerations. As Heller and McDonald essentially incorporate the 2nd Amendment, this would imply that if a State can do it, so can the Federal government.

I also note that the 1994-2004 federal ban was challenged on various Constitutional issues (unsuccessfully) but not the 2nd Amendment. It may be that Heller and other recent precedent may encourage a challenge to a new federal ban on 2nd Amendment grounds, but there would appear to be a fair way to before you can claim such a challenge would be successful based on Heller.

I would expect that the drafters of legislation would look at the legal lansdscape anyway, to try to make any law harder to be overturned. Of course, I would also expect opponents to try wrecking amendments if they are not in a position to stop it passing.

Agreed

GMTom wrote:Driving a car is not a constitutional right now is it?
check how much you paid for your last cup of coffee, same nonsensical difference.
Your right to bear arms is a right, it must have reasonable restrictions and making it so very few (hunters included!) can afford them is most certainly not "reasonable".

I was talking to a few people here and we were discussing bb guns when we were kids, I looked up what was available nowadays, I checked freaking Walmart and the first bb gun shown was this:

Now do we really need to have this type of design????

Holy crap! What happened to Daisy? If I bought this for my kid, I guess I wouldn't worry so much about putting out an eye, but that worry would be replaced by death by cop.

If one of my kids pulled a weapon like this out against a cop, I would fully expect the cop to shoot. Perhaps we have good parenting sense...

I teach my kids with a Daisy. I am with them while they shoot also...

Of all the absurd and stupid laws...
We have far too many knee jerk examples of laws calling for the end of this gun or that gun, we have had arguments for why we should allow or disallow this and that, now we have a polar opposite (but equally stupid) law in Georgia:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/us/georgi ... google_cnn

so you are actually "required" to own a gun, how dumb is that and how is this not stamping all over ones constitutional rights. If you have the right to bear arms, would it not follow that you have a right to NOT bear arms as well?
They do make a provision to disallow felons, mentally ill and those who object for various reasons but how can you call this a law if you can simply object? I am on the guns "rights" side but I also own no guns myself and would not like anyone telling me I "had" to own one, while I support those who want to own one, I would not mind taking that town to court to defend my "rights" to not own one as well.

California requires that a person who has a restraining order against them must give up their guns Many states don't have such a requirement. Here is an article discussing this issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/fa ... d=all&_r=0

Is California correct?

as is the answer most of the time, yes and no!
I agree guns should be taken away in many situations ...but in every situation?
From what I understand, an order of protection is very easy to get and requires almost no proof of need. If it is indeed so easy, can you now disallow someones rights? But as the story shows, in Washington State they do have an option for judges to use that would take away guns but this option is rarely ever used. No simple answer and it's not exactly black and white.

In Pennsylvania it is an option condition open to the Judge/to be negotiated. While my experience is limited to one county, every Judge I have dealt with imposes the condition if they find for the petitioner. Though, in the past, I have negotiated away the condition but only because it wasn't a case where gun possession was an issue.