>>>>>Maybe the FAA doesn't want the plane going down when a gun goes off?
>>>>
>>>>Are police carrying .50 cal machine guns now when flying? :o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the impact the ruling has to have had on Moses. I'll bet old Moses would have loved to have been able to make a press conference about this! Somewhere up there Charleton Heston has got to be grinning!<g>
>>
>>FWIW, all the analyses I'm seeing point out that this decision takes away the NRA's strongest argument against gun control laws (registration, limits, etc.), the slippery slope. If the Supreme Court says you can't have a total ban, then claiming that limits are just one step on the road to a total ban doesn't work. I think this ruling will end up allowing a lot more gun control laws to be passed.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>I would argue that the analysis is flawed based on an incorrect assumption that the NRA simply exists to continue the argument. The bans of DC, Chicago, SF et al were not imaginary "boogeymen" that the NRA was using to frighten its members. They were the end result of prior gun-restricting legislation.
>
>This is a long-overdue vindication for the NRA's position in regards to the individual's constitutional right. The "death by a thousand cuts" scenario has been removed and now the arguments about the merits of restriction can continue without the threat of a ban.

What do you mean about restriction without the threat of a ban? Like you can possess handguns on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays only? Not being snide, I just don't follow.