View Single Post
  #46  
Old 12-07-2012, 12:19 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
I don't believe we should even require a good cause.
Agreed, but you have to put it into context of the assertion The Shadow was making that legislators will try to close it as a "loophole".

There are two potential good outcomes: (1) good cause/good moral character are stricken as unconstitutional; (2) they both stay, but are defined objectively and trivially as "self defense" and "not prohibited."

Outcome (1) is what we would ultimately want, as it would preclude legislators from revisiting the issue. However, outcome (2) is not bad either, since it works within the existing framework, but achieves essentially the same goal.

Further, outcome (2) is not only good as a starting point, but it also prevents "stirring of the hornets nest" by keeping Feinstein's pet gun control talking point intact, thus being unlikely to trigger any serious discussion or action in Sacramento. Even if legislators wanted to act upon it, they would at that time already have their "local LEO knows best." Also, it is very hard to define "morality" and "good cause" in a way that is clean, yet bypasses a ruling of type (2).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 12-07-2012 at 12:21 PM..