"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Norminn wrote:

The Orlando paper had a story about the Sanford neighborhood watch/PD
roles. Not only is NW NOT supposed to carry weapons, they are not
supposed to PATROL. There is an entirely separate group, trained by
PD and driving marked vehicles, who are supposed to patrol under their
program.

And if a member of the community DOES carry a weapon and DOES patrol,
even
in a marked vehicle, what're the police to do? Taunt him a second time?

Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address that.
Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get arrested. Or
revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being an unlicensed
security
guard. Or do any number of things quite more unpleasant than a taunting.
Heller didn't give Americans unfettered carry rights, despite what some
people incredibly choose to believe. It said there could be reasonable
conditions places on gun ownership.


Man,
You're getting more and more stupid and desperate as time goes on.

And NO, Heller did not give rights
JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION does not "GIVE RIGHTS"

As to "reasonable conditions", THERE ARE NOT "reasonalbe conditions" allowed
under the letter of the 2nd AMendment
ANd notwithtanding Scalia's opining on it, the 2nd Amendment does NOT say
"..he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
EXCEPT FOR.."
It just says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
That's a pretty ABSOLUTE dicta when you think about it
Isn't it funny how ACTUALLY READING the law, simplifies it...




As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws
being passed in a number of states.

yawn
Won't happen
But it's a typical solution to pacify the idiot, the unthinking and the
ignorati.
More laws that don't do anything more than the existing laws, were they
enforced.
Vigilantism, is already a crime covered under current criminal code
Typically under kidnapping, illegal detention, assault and homicide


Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. All that has to happen
is one conservative member retires for the calculus to change completely.

At least that's what the wishfull thinking left would love to believe
But the US Supreme Court has a LONG history of NOT going back on previous
decisions (look up Stare Decisis)
And there is also a good chance that judges with questionnable integrity
like Sotomajor and


HE & McD concerned, primarily, handgun ownership bans,
real and defacto. There will need to be a large number of lawsuits in
order
to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be
unconstitutional. As far as I know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.


It still stands because it has NOT been challenged since Heller and
MacDonald
But not surprised you would spout such an ignorant strawman..
Par for the course
Meanwhile various other States have already been challenged and have had
some or all of their restrictions knocked down as unconstitutional