DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Private Fuzzy]

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

Hell yeah.:clapping:

[cimmaronkid]

This is probably the most important decision so far in the battle of the Second Amendment and will open the way to a showdown in the Supreme Court with the Anti gun people. Most Anti's will be knocked back because of this ruling and puts the Supreme Court in a unique position if this verdict is appealed and most likely it will. If the decision is not appealed, then the precedent has been established as to private ownership and the rights guaranteed in the Second. If the ruling is appealed and the Supreme Court decides NOT to hear the case, then they have helped establish that the Second is indeed interperted as written and therefore firearm ownership is legal and cannot be taken away from the public without another amendment to the constitution repealling the Second. If they do hear the case, their ruling will surely go against the anti's as all precedent throughout our history has held in favor of the Second and with a majority of conservative judges that believe in the strict interpertation of the Constitution, then the ruling will be in our favor and the major battle has been won. It is interesting that in the above ruling the judges made no mention to banning certain types of firearms but did make mention of "That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)....The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." Now we just have to protect against losing the right to own all types of firearms.

[okie shooter]

Interesting to see this, It will be up to the supreme court to judge this one though, I cannot imagine DC not fighting the next round with HGC and such as friends of the court, on the side of DC and the ban.

[Rampager]

GREAT NEWS IT IS!!!!

This is a great victory and a wise decision by the court. Of course the real test will be in the Supreme court which is where this will be heading. I actually have a good feeling this ruling will be upheld by the current supreme court as it is now. Especially now with Samuel Alito.


This ruling only illustrates how very important judicial appointees are to us and more importantly who appoints them.

[bullseye]

I was so happy to see this I almost cracked a tear. :crying: I am so relieved, and now the fight has begun. :wave:

[fordruid]

I bet that the SCOTUS won't hear it. They pick and choose their cases and this one probably won't get picked.

[Cavalryman]

Here's what I predict: The Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. The ruling will stand in the Second District and other judicial districts will refuse to recognize it as precedent. Eventually the judges in the Second District will be replaced with more liberal judges and we'll be right back where we are now.

[franks71vw]

Here's what I predict: The Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. The ruling will stand in the Second District and other judicial districts will refuse to recognize it as precedent. Eventually the judges in the Second District will be replaced with more liberal judges and we'll be right back where we are now.

Gees Cavalryman :thanks: for your positive outlook I still say we all keep fighting against any and all:ban: s

[Schmitty]

Ahh...this is fantastic news indeed. I'm glad that there are at least some people in power that understand what the word, "rights", means.

[Anthropy]

I came across this yesterday and was simply shocked and gratified that a ruling for once went our way.

We shall see were it goes however. If it stands it will be a victory.

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/D8NOSR480.html)

[Seattlefungus]

I'm not surprised. The California State Supreme Court just tossed San Fransisco's city law that was very similar... The various courts have been doing a narrow interpretation of the Constitution for the last 4 or so years...

[Norton]

Here's what I predict: The Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. The ruling will stand in the Second District and other judicial districts will refuse to recognize it as precedent. Eventually the judges in the Second District will be replaced with more liberal judges and we'll be right back where we are now.

I fear Cav is right.. For what ever reason the supreme court will pass on this.
The other parts of the USA will simply ignor it. My real opinion is even darker.
Even if the US supreme court gave a unanimous decsion saying the second admendment is an individual right to own weapons. The majority of illegal laws would still be kept on the books and inforced. The cry would be the supreme court made an illegal decision and cities and states will not abide by the ruling.
Liberals have proved time and time again that if they do not like a law or court rulling you simply ignor it.. The media will back them 100% with round the clock coverage backing the anti 2nd admendment postion. They would just bide their time and wait for a change on the court. Then try a new case to get what they wanted in the first place. I am sure you all notice when a private citizen guns down a rampaging murderer or kills a robber. That part of the story is either downplayed or not mentioned at all. They don't want the public to think having a weapon is a good idea except if you are a movie star or a rich man. (even then only the right kind of movie star or rich man) Sorry to be a wet blanket, I truly hope Alito and Thomas will put this case on the docket so we can gets some satisfaction. As far as I know the only case they go by is the 1939 Miller case about the sawed off shotgun. Even that was BS , it said a sawed off shotgun is not part of a milita's TO&E so the feds could ban it. If you think about it they did not ban F/A weapons such as the Thompson just tax them as to get around the 2nd admendment angle.

[Cavalryman]

Gees Cavalryman :thanks: for your positive outlook I still say we all keep fighting against any and all:ban: s
I didn't say we should not fight -- I simply pointed out what I expect. In fact, my pessimism about the court/political system is one of the reasons I believe we should fight.

[drhall762]

I am pleasantly surprised. I didn't believe the Second was so level. I have to agree, I don't think the SC will hear it and I don't believe many other Districts will agree with it. Now that being said, we knukle down for the long haul. Remember Boston.

Dave :sniper:

[mistersquiggles]

On more than one occasion when discussing different laws, and law enforcement, comments have been made regarding a supreme court ruling that basically states or implies that a person is not "guaranteed" protection from the police.... does anyone know the actual case and ruling? we got in kind of a lengthy discussion about such things here at work and i cannot find the actual ruling that pertains..... anyone know?

[okie shooter]

Try this news blog, it lists many of the items you are interested in.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

[mistersquiggles]

Thanks!! very informative, and useful for the discussion at work.....

[okie shooter]

Heres another web page discussing this idea too

http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm

Most of these articles deal with trying though to get restitution or dammages due to lack of either responce or such. Thus in general not that the police do not have to make some effort to protect(or that would be delt with by their officals) but that you cannot sue due to inaction or slow action.

[Nazgul]

Don't even mention Katrina....and the lack of protection. Or the illegal gun roundup after.

[okie shooter]

Don't even mention Katrina....and the lack of protection. Or the illegal gun roundup after.

None of the stuff I quoted delt with that subject, it mainly was stuff about suits against departments for ordnary failures of enforcement. The court is saying, that you cannot sue if some one is criminal(not the police themselves like in cases of abuse) and causes you dammage or harm, it would proably take extraordnary failure or encourgement of a police entity to cause actual dammage to ever be awarded. Otherwise departments just police their own officers actions.

[pigpen]

When the guhm-mitt will guarantee my saftey they can purchase all my firearms from me @ a price I choose. Until then they will have to take them bullets first.

[mistersquiggles]

both links were informative and useful for our "discussion" (which inevitably turned into an argument here at work) originally i was under the impression that (hypothetically) say youre at home and someone attacks you cause youre unarmed, scared, pacifist, whatever, and youre hurt you cant sue the police, and those links provided the rulings and references i needed..... Thanks very much for the info..... as far as Pigpens comment, i totally agree, and wouldnt be caught at home or elsewhere unprepared..... on Nazgul's quote... well lets just say that at least at the state level, Louisiana's law enforcement, and lack of it during Katrina, got the attention of a lot of people, and i believe that Nagin, who i consider to be a racist idiot got his pee pee smacked for allowing those guns to be rounded up... i believe there are still suits pending that havent made it to court yet...... again thanks Okie, your links were a great help.:rockon:

[okie shooter]

from this site

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns



Supreme Court could take guns case
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago


Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[SteelCore]

I read it, then re-read it, and it scares me because the Supreme court thinks it can change my rights, my individual inalineable rights...those rights that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only state to let all know who are (or come to be) americans that you have rights THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY! They can't be decided by a court of law.

Specifically, these sections worried me:

"Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right."

-->EX-fookin-SCUSE me, but this nation is NOT a collective of ANY sort... this is the FIRST nation on the planet to be based solely on the right of the individual, NOT communism, NOT socialism, or freakin god-kings. Collectivism is socialism or communism...dinn't we fight a cold war to ensure that this DIDN'T happen?:nonono:

"Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005."

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

-->More BS in the same vein! Nofa king way can they really mean this!


Look, law goofs, this is a simple issue--OVERTURN any existing gun legislation, and lett the 2nd amendment be the beginning and end of it. Just because you make a ton of unconstitutional rulings doesn't make them Constitutional, or the Constitution wrong or outmoded. If you find yourself ruling against the Framers and their brilliance set to paper, it is YOU who are outmoded.

I would expect this from some freakin terrorists or the UN, but now i know the meaning of "enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC"


/RANT

[jlpskydive]

What Steel Core said!!! :America:

[GreenWolf]

I read it, then re-read it, and it scares me because the Supreme court thinks it can change my rights, my individual inalineable rights...
The Supreme Court can also affirm those rights. This case already won in a lower appeals court. The D.C. gun ban was already ruled unconstitutional. D.C. wants to take this case to the next level, the Supreme Court, for a decision. Chief Justice Roberts used to be a judge in the appeals court that ruled the gun ban unconstitutional, and from what I've read, second amendment rights advocates are saying, "bring it on.":rockon:
The Supreme Court might not even hear this case.

I read this article yesterday on the International Herald Tribue, but it vanished from that site. It's not in the archives. Fortunately, I found it elsewhere:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=206594

After reading the Yahoo News version, it looks like Yahoo News distilled the article hyperlinked above, and left out a lot of interesting insight. Read the article.

Here is a link to the SCOTUS blog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justices-to-consider-gun-case-nov-9/), where a bunch of "law goofs" discuss the issues, from their goofy perspective, no doubt.

[IMBLITZVT]

Boy its Scary to be from Maryland! You see us in there with the other liberal states. I would hate to have to move to keep my God given rights.

You know the only reason I went and voted for Bush was so he would appoint the key supreme court justices. If these Justices fail us now, I don't think I will vote for another Republican. Oh and no I an not going to the left...

If they refuse to hear it... man... and if they do hear it... man...

[rpmfly2]

I wonder if this is all about protecting a criminals:icon_biggrin: rights?
Since they will still have guns!

[ctdemolay0405]

I wonder if this is all about protecting a criminals:icon_biggrin: rights?
Since they will still have guns!
every gun law disarms law abiding citizens, criminals will always have them, and the liberals cant fathom this concept. criminals break laws, its that simple. i hope the supreme court takes the case and throws it in the liberals faces. i hope we come out of this alive... but who knows in this day and age.

[pigpen]

Sight your weapons and buy ammo!!!

[Woodman in MO]

I've been reading Tushnet's book, Out of range : why the Constitution can't end the battle over guns

It is not a light read by any means but he does a pretty good job of going into both sides of the issue from a historical and legal prespective. He gets into the concepts of "People" and "Militia" and all the ambiguity behind the wording.

If you think the anti-gunners don't have a leg to stand on and that this is a "no-brainer" pro-gun win, you would be wrong. There is, like it or not, precedent in the law to support their case.

Now, I think that the time is right for this case cause I belive that this court would rule the law unconstitutional, but it will be a tough fight.

Check out the book if you have plenty of time to really delve into the 2nd Amendment from a legal prespective. Remember, it was written by a lawyer and his target audience is lawyers....

[okie shooter]

Remember, as stated, if the court turns down the appeal from the states and authorties involved down, the lower court ruleing will stand. Thus there is legal precident there. If the court takes the case it could go either way though. This isnt like the earler cases involveing automatic weapons and nfa type decisions though, its basic gun owners rights for hand guns and such.

Those who foolish say I don't care who wins the next election, if their canidate isnt elected, there are plenty of older justices ready for replacement, thus if a liberial president appoints activeist justices you will see a swing away from the direction the court has been going now. Thus remember no matter what, your vote counts, in congress(the senate confirms the justice, after appointment by the president)as well as president so chose wisely when you say I dont like the canidates I am given, so screw the system.

[Woodman in MO]

Remember, as stated, if the court turns down the appeal from the states and authorties involved down, the lower court ruleing will stand. Thus there is legal precident there..

Just in that District though. I know it can be used, but some of those Judges on other districts don't give a rat's a$$ about other district decisions. The ruling from the SCOTUS is really is what is needed to put some power behind the decision. Although there are some judges that don't care what they think either....

[okie shooter]

Just in that District though. I know it can be used, but some of those Judges on other districts don't give a rat's a$$ about other district decisions. The ruling from the SCOTUS is really is what is needed to put some power behind the decision. Although there are some judges that don't care what they think either....
Thats true, a lower court can be sited but only in power where the lower court has juristiction, when a case hits the supreme court, it takes a new law or change in the constitution to get that one moved. Its just like those who call for a constitutional convention, thats a open book for everything to change wether you like it or not. With a convention they could even make slavery for whites legal, thus changing status for entire eliments of society. Thus the court or a convention is a double edged sword at times.

[ctdemolay0405]

either way, i dont see things getting better in dc. fenty and norton scare the crap out of me, and even if the court says that the dc law is unconstitutional, i bet they'll do anything they can to keep guns out of law abiding citizen's hands, reguardless of that they have one of the highest murder rates in teh country, and i cant walk from my dorm to class without being worried about a mugger. there was a gunpoint mugging a block from my dorm a week ago.... and i am not allowed a gun, a knife, an asp, anything to defend myself, but the criminals have free reign and run the district. god this place scares me....

[IMBLITZVT]

If you think the anti-gunners don't have a leg to stand on and that this is a "no-brainer" pro-gun win, you would be wrong. There is, like it or not, precedent in the law to support their case.



You know, when it comes to liberal arts type Professionals, no one can screw things up better. Look at Art, only an "Artist" could tell you some piece or crap, looks like a two year old did it, painting is art. Only an English teacher reading a poem about something simple and obvious, could read into it the meaning of life. AND only a lawyer (or Judge) could read "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could read anything other then "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There may well be law to support it, but I argue that the Constitution is above Court Law. It is a contract between the US Government and the People. There is no need for Law, lawyers and Judges. Just because some criminal lawyer and commie Judge say different, does not make gun laws legal! Otherwise the Nazis who killed all those Jews would be standing on very firm legal ground with tons of precedent in their laws to support them!

That being said and coming back to the failing state of the country, Woodman in MO, I would be interested in the Precedent you are talking about.

[ctdemolay0405]

lets just wait it out, pray the best happens, and we dont loose our freedoms. cause if we loose that case.... welcome to the new soviet union guys

[pigpen]

...they could even make slavery for whites legal...


Did you mean, "slavery of whites"? J/K:icon_neutral:

If they don't make a decision on this before 2009 & hitlery appoints some commie judges we will be screwed.

As said before, now would be the best time to go ahead & settle the issue. Waiting any longer could mean even more liberal, living consitution judges will be on the bench when/if it makes on the docket a few years down the road.

[Woodman in MO]

That being said and coming back to the failing state of the country, Woodman in MO, I would be interested in the Precedent you are talking about.

I can't quote you chapter and verse, but it basically revolved around how the SCOTUS has historically ruled on the concept of "People" in the Constitution relating to other amendments and an analysis of historical documents that the Constitution drew from that have a different concept of "People" then we think of it today.

Keep in mind the book title basically spells out his argument.:thumbup:

Not to mention the fact that while in first amendment "plainly" says that there shall be no laws abridging the freedom of speech or press, we have plenty of those.

[ctdemolay0405]

what is your honest opinion on how the upcoming court case we've mentioned in several threads will turn out?

[ctdemolay0405]

remember, this is not an opinion on what u want them to rule, but what in ur gut u think they will

[SteelCore]

At the risk of sounding seditious, I don't think their affirming or denying those rights has (or should have, more accurately) anything to do with my right to my rights.

I'll check out the link you posted, WW...thx.

-Steely

[Norton]

They will weasel out and take a fuzzy stand saying there is a right to own weapons but the states and localitys have the right to restrict ownership and certain types of weapons as they see fit.
They will word it in such a way to give wide latitude for cities to have and keep restrictive laws
They will not turn over the apple cart
I hope I am wrong but after the emitnate domain ruling
(seizing private property for real estate devolpment)
I would put nothing past them

[tanstaafl4y]

I voted will not hear the case. That is what the court has done in the past.

[robocop10mm]

They have been leaning toward a ruling on the 2nd Ammendment for several years. I think they were waiting for the right case. This is the right case. I beleive this is the right case because of the lack of coverage in the news media. They do not want the issue on peoples lips.

[GreenWolf]

remember, this is not an opinion on what u want them to rule, but what in ur gut u think they will
:icon_biggrin: what's the difference?

In my opinion, or rather, I think that if they take the case they will rule in such a way as to spread relief and gladness on Militaryfirearm.com.

[Norton]

the . This is the right case. I beleive this is the right case because of the lack of coverage in the news media. They do not want the issue on peoples lips.

That is a very good point, I have heard very little in the Main stream media about this.

[Rampager]

I voted they will not here the case.

I really don't think they want to get involved in local decisions involving the Constitution’s 2nd amendment.

If they were to interpret the Constitution (their duty) obviously these local laws banning the right to bear arms (lawful firearm ownership) would have to be overturned. But they like most other dysfunctional branches of our government just aren’t willing to do their sworn duty anymore. Much like the way Congress ignores the will of the American people these days.

Maybe the SC will take it and rule in favor of the 2nd amendment and surprise me, but I highly doubt it. I think they will just pretend it's not there.

[pigpen]

I really think they will take the lazy government employee route & not do anything.


No offense to any gov't employees(myself included).:thumbup:

[CHSnake]

I think they will ignore it

[Woodman in MO]

I voted that they will take it, but I'm beginning to think that they will not. The lower court decided that the law was unconsititutional, so there isn't much for the court to change. I think they will maybe just afirm the lower courts rulings and not even hear arguments.

[tanstaafl4y]

I beleive this is the right case because of the lack of coverage in the news media. They do not want the issue on peoples lips.


DC's Mayor likes to be on TV. I spend a month in Northern VA on business and every night Fenty was on the evening news for atleast 2 segments (ie at the scene of a train accident, at an elementary school presenting an award, The dedication of a street sign, and similar BS). My sister (a local) says his media-whoring is constant.

I was there during "the ruling overturning the gunban" And he was frequently being interviewed and having sound bites aired. If the Court hears the case Fenty will find a way to turn it into a media circus setting up the Obama/Fenty 2012 ticket.

I can imagine the commercials for that one right now...{Edited - Wow that came off a bit racist}

[okie shooter]

Asked for a honest opnion, not what I think, I think the court won't hear the case thus let it stand. This court hasnt wanted to be activist.

[ctdemolay0405]

Asked for a honest opnion, not what I think, I think the court won't hear the case thus let it stand. This court hasnt wanted to be activist.
and unless i'm mistaken, them not hearing the case is a win for d.c., and other places that will start to use that as case law

[okie shooter]

and unless i'm mistaken, them not hearing the case is a win for d.c., and other places that will start to use that as case law

No, just the ruleing in the lower court was against dc and the law, (the full appleate court decided not to hear dc's appeal), but the strikeing down of the law, has been stayed, but if the court decides not to hear the case, the ruleing against the ban on handguns in dc will overturned. Just the district can always pass another law, and if the judge changes the ruleing can always change too.

Some one correct me if I am understanding this wrong.

Heres a link to the case on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

[ctdemolay0405]

i could have sworn that a dc court upheld the law and the appellate court overturned

[ctdemolay0405]

yea, it said the federal appellate court overturned, and denyed a rehearing that fenty (read: jack***) wanted

[okie shooter]

I think we are saying the same thing, after the district court upheld for the city, the three judge panel of the court of appeals declared the dc law invalid(by citeing the second admendment), thus the entire courts of appeals declined to hear dc's arguement, but dc has a stay until its appeals are exausted. Thus you still are bound by the law until all of the cities appeals are done(this last one in the scous).

[tumbleweed1002]

If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice!

[pigpen]

If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice!

Lets not get a Canadian band like Rush involved.
Some of their songs rock tho.

[avord70]

I say they will vote for the 2A. Then other leftist cities will have to comply with the supreme court ruling and allow citizens to defend their families, homes and businesses!:America:

[bullseye]

I believe they will take this one and run with it in our favor. Maybe they are tired of the BS, maybe someone they know needed a gun and couldn't get one, maybe they read the constitution and understood it, I don't know, but I believe they will do us right this time.:America: We will have to wait and see, what is the expected time to find out the next tidbit on this? :catcorn:

[IMBLITZVT]

I just heard it on the radio... Boy this is going to get interesting! I am keeping my fingers crossed!

:America:

[okie shooter]

from this source

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AlQ90TPVEILsoxKi6yikmEus0NUE


Supreme Court will hear D.C. guns case
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago


The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Alan Gura, a lawyer for the D.C. residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.
"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection.
The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.
Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.
The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.
The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.
Arguments will be heard early next year. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[Woodman in MO]

Wow....you're right....should be a real landmark case...

[Old Jimmy]

I cant wait, I hope they put the Brady people out of business.

Also dont the constitution say the peoples right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed?
If so the court can only rule in our favor.

Old Jimmy

[IMBLITZVT]

Have we ever really won one of these battles? I mean maybe the AWB but thats about it...

[okie shooter]

In my opnion, better this court then maybe the next one, five years down the line or so, this is a slightly different case than the court took in the thirties though(basicaly the NFA of 1934), its basic application of the second admentment rather than the issues of fa and sawed off shotguns and such(and the goverments claim that the nfa was a tax rather than restriction).

[jlpskydive]

3... 2.... 1.... waiting for the EXTREAMLY LIBERAL ONE SIDED MEDIA to start their campaign for the ban to stand. LAIDES and GENTELMEN now is the time WE need to be the LOADEST!!!!! Cause God knows the Brady bunch is pulling out their Bullhorns as we speak!! :America::America:

[okie shooter]

Its ironic that this case is alot more gun owner friendly than the last case the supreme court heard where the plaintiff didnt even survive long enough to hear the results of the appeal to the SCOUS.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm

[okie shooter]

3... 2.... 1.... waiting for the EXTREAMLY LIBERAL ONE SIDED MEDIA to start their campaign for the ban to stand. LAIDES and GENTELMEN now is the time WE need to be the LOADEST!!!!! Cause God knows the Brady bunch is pulling out their Bullhorns as we speak!! :America::America:

Well I loved the photo of the scorpian machine pistol attached to the news of this story on google when I looked for more news stories on this. Ya thats what this ban is talking about right, you arnt kidding on the media there for sure.

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=99975

[IMBLITZVT]

After reading on the subject for while, It seems that they would argue that our rights are to military arms only. So yeah you can get a M16 but no military uses the AR15... which is of course exactly opposite the way it is. Its pretty hard to believe that our rights have that F-ed up of a case ruling over it. I mean the Gun rights people were not even present to make an argument!

[Jlawman3]

I mean the Gun rights people were not even present to make an argument!

If only I had a time machine...

[ctdemolay0405]

well, maybe we can find a delorian

[SteelCore]

"dont the constitution say the peoples right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed?
If so the court can only rule in our favor."


One would hope/think. The real deal is that the should not have to rule at all, and that the rights espoused in the Constitutio and Bill of Rights are not granted by those documents, they are INALIENABLE rights that we all have, they just put it in writing to acknowledge them as inalienable.

Thus, any ruling the limit or remove an inalienable right is an affront to these documents, the framers, and to all of us who would have our un-violatable rights curtailed.

It should be unconstitutional for Judges to even try to rule on this.

Oh, and for those 2nd amendment apologists who say "Well, weapons were differetn when the framers were around, so you should only have it apply to cap and ball singleshot muskets."

To that I call BS. remember that was top-of-the-line war arms and hunting arms at the time....so our rights really should extend to personal arms that go as far as the miitary's arms. (Bring on the FA and the cans, I say!)

[ctdemolay0405]

anyone know the hearing date for the case? i'll camp out all night infront of the supreme court if it means i could witness them (gotta love being in DC)

[mistersquiggles]

the part i hear that is the issue is the whole people/militia thing....

the first and fourth and a few others all mention "the right of the people" to discern that it is an individual right..... if they rule the militia being the only ones who can bear arms,then it can be posited that "the people" is collective and not individual.... and if they do that, we effectively have NO individual rights under the constitution..... at that point, i'm either becoming phillipino or mexican........

[SteelCore]

And they know it. it still says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, for them to say that these brilliant framers got all the others right, but somehow botched this one, is fooking BS.

THAT interpretation that you put forth is what scares me abt anyone ruling about anythinng 2nd amendment related.

Not to mention, cornland out here would be overrun in a year if they took guns away.

[ctdemolay0405]

if they took all guns away, with the high energy this country has... there would be a larger possibility of a revolution. this country is sick of the bullspit in washington, hollywood's lies, affirmative action and reverse racism and how far in the gutter this country's going.

[hunter_la5]

if they took all guns away, with the high energy this country has... there would be a larger possibility of a revolution.

i dunno dude, I honestly think america has lost it's spine in matter such as this. we are a nation of sheep, and will more than likely stand idle, at the most maybe b!tch and moan a bit, if all our guns are taken away. I'd like to think otherwise, but I think most of the country has lost the will to fight for their rights. hopefully I would be proven wrong, if such an event were to ever occur, God forbid.

[renegade]

"dont the constitution say the peoples right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed?
If so the court can only rule in our favor."


One would hope/think. The real deal is that the should not have to rule at all, and that the rights espoused in the Constitutio and Bill of Rights are not granted by those documents, they are INALIENABLE rights that we all have, they just put it in writing to acknowledge them as inalienable.

Thus, any ruling the limit or remove an inalienable right is an affront to these documents, the framers, and to all of us who would have our un-violatable rights curtailed.

It should be unconstitutional for Judges to even try to rule on this.

Oh, and for those 2nd amendment apologists who say "Well, weapons were differetn when the framers were around, so you should only have it apply to cap and ball singleshot muskets."

To that I call BS. remember that was top-of-the-line war arms and hunting arms at the time....so our rights really should extend to personal arms that go as far as the miitary's arms. (Bring on the FA and the cans, I say!)

Go SteelCore, Go, more, more...:rockon:

[renegade]

i dunno dude, I honestly think america has lost it's spine in matter such as this. we are a nation of sheep, and will more than likely stand idle, at the most maybe b!tch and moan a bit, if all our guns are taken away. I'd like to think otherwise, but I think most of the country has lost the will to fight for their rights. hopefully I would be proven wrong, if such an event were to ever occur, God forbid.

Sadly, your right, most people can be placated by a simple gift of sorts, i.e. the gov gives a little in the favor of the squeakiest wheel, the wheel's happy even though, they have just given up a lot more just to get some personal satisfaction, and to get that gratification.

[mistersquiggles]

And they know it. it still says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, for them to say that these brilliant framers got all the others right, but somehow botched this one, is fooking BS.

THAT interpretation that you put forth is what scares me abt anyone ruling about anythinng 2nd amendment related.

Not to mention, cornland out here would be overrun in a year if they took guns away.


hey man i agree with you..... but local legislators here have been going back and forth over what they think will happen, and more than one judge has said the hinge point is gonna be over collective vs individual rights....... i like your interpretation.... why would they botch up the one amendment made to protect the others?

[SteelCore]

pardon my "candor" in this matter, it is not directed at you.

"more than one judge has said the hinge point is gonna be over collective vs individual rights"
-->HoKAY, we need to back up and look what what makes this grand country and experiment we call the US unique...that's right, there is ONE thing this country did NOT borrow or import from another, but invented itself. (Well there's two, but the second is caused by the first..we'll get to that one).

This country is the only country in the History Of The World that was founded solely on the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, and these documents make that CRYSTAL CLEAR.
Okay, so what is individualism? It is that the laws of this country are here to protect and serve the individual and his/her INALIENABLE right to the pursuit of happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of others. It gives the individual room to fail. It gives the individual to room to hurt others, and then the laws take over to mete out a punishment for the transgression that as determined just by his or her peers.

So why is this different than other countries, you say? Because of all the other republics and democracies you may see round the world, they were founded on collectivism or by the populace being subservient to a GOD, KING, (sometimes a god-king, like the pharos), or the STATE. Now these versions of collectivism put a god, king, or or the state's rights and needs ahead of the individual, and at best, the individual becomes a servant to the god, king, or state. At worst he/she becomes a slave, (and if he/she outlives his usefulness, a body in a mass grave). Your job in a collective is just like that of your neighbors...to enrich the guy(s) at the top of the collective, while they do as little as possible for you, and you do not control your destiny.
Today, there are still tons of collectives, and not all are 3rd world counties. Saudi Arabia has a KING.
Many Mideast nations have a GOD or religion (Islam) that they put first.
Communist China and Russia are STATIST, and all serve the state.

Now briefly...the second thing that came out of the US, wholly our invention was the concept of Partiotism. Other countries can have nationalism, but not other country has or had Patriotism, which is more than Nationalism can ever be.
Patriotism is the reflection of individualism in the indivudual's eyes, the understanding by the individual that by bettering one's self, one can also make bigger strides as an interdependent socitey of individuals than a country of dependent collectivists could ever do. Free the individual, and you free the world. Patriotism is the feel that you've got you're inalienable rights, and they ar NOT NEGOTIABLE, NOT ONE BIT, and that the individual is willling to die free rather than live a slave....and by their death, they may ensure that others after them may drink from the same well of freedom and independence, and understand why their forebears risked all to forge this new and shining place.

"i dunno dude, I honestly think america has lost it's spine in matter such as this. we are a nation of sheep..."
-->Well, the sheepdogs remain well armed and trained.
Do you think it was really different back then? I mean, there were sheep when this country was founded? Then there were also ppl who did nothing while the Brits imposed law after law on the unwilling but unresponsive populace. It ALWAYS takes a few rabble-rousers, a few revolutionaries, risk-takers, thinkers AND doers to get the ball rolling. A few to stand where others cower, to stand up to the whip and the shackle, to denounce tyranny and resist grey subservience and slavery...
And I know they are still out there (or in here), and they do have a line that will not be crossed. Wait and see, or stand along side them.

[ctdemolay0405]

i nominate steelcore as our general for the impending war, if it comes to unorganized militias fighting

[hulygan]

just got this from a buddy of mine, just thought I would pass it on.

District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear
> > arms.
> >
> > First - vote on this one. Second - launch it to all the pro-gun
> > folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get
> > published.
> >
> > To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below.
> >
> > Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
> >
> > Vote here:
> >
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

[nevada]

I voted.

Saw that on a sticker somewhere.:icon_biggrin:

[rustypirate]

did you check the results.......

[Optimus Prime]

97% Yes after I voted... seems pretty cut and dry to me!

[hulygan]

97% Yes after I voted... seems pretty cut and dry to me!


Yeah, but some nimrods still voted no or undecieded.

[Norton]

I voted..

[Phirebug]

at 270,185, that means there are still better than 8000 morons that voted...

[CHSnake]

I voted

[ctdemolay0405]

and yet, the jack--ses in DC will still find a way to ban guns after the supreme court tells them they cant

[hulygan]

and yet, the jack--ses in DC will still find a way to ban guns after the supreme court tells them they cant

don't forget those that make the law also are the ones that interpret the law, and yes they will find a way. :wall:

[Old Jimmy]

Too bad our votes dont count. Still at 97%.

Old Jimmy

[ctdemolay0405]

and that crime will always be high as long as good people dont have the means to defend themselves. i am scared walking around DC at times. a sig on my hip or a walther in my pocket would make me feel secure.... too bad it'll never hapen

[QuickDrawMcGraw]

I voted, But lets remember its the " Obvious " that is continually overlooked by the Politicians, be it whatever party they are in .

They could have a simple document ( Wait I think there is one called the Unites States Constitution) which spells it out clearly and still need to try and argue , manipulate, interpert, fold, sway , explain......... why we really dont have the right to bear arms .

Make sense??

[SteelCore]

voted.

97% when I voted, 285,827 total votes.

[rideronthestorm]

I'm hoping gun control helped take Hillary down a notch in the caucuses. Now if we can do something about anti-gun Obama... I've tried to keep gun control in everyone's face. Not hard to do, I just post comments on every news article I can. Using the DesMoines Register online forums takes a short registration and then you have full access. Lots of convenience store holdups and other violent crime in Des Moines. Often the victim is a woman. Also had a man with a knife kill 2 women in Omaha and rape a daughter. Those are good examples of how gun bans discriminate against women. I also point people to my web site to show how there really are bills in Congress to ban guns. I encourage everyone to do the same. Feel free to copy whatever you want from my web site. It is http://rideronthestorm-armed.angelfire.com/

[rideronthestorm]

On the Des Moines Register forums I'm "leopard". Came from "leopard_colony" as I have several unusual cat's I adopted as part of a rescue network.

[Darkwatch]

just voted....looks like a landslide too...:thumbup: 97% yes when i voted!

[MID]

I voted no.















Naht

[Allwater]

I just voted - it's still at 97% - but with 305,114 votes now!

That's 20,000 votes since this morning...

[rustypirate]

I think that it is interesting to note that some poeple have stated the "our votes on this poll don't count"

You are right, they do not count towards the presidential election.

But USA Today has asked for a poll on this issue. This issue is on all of the cantidates minds. At least it hasx not been swept under the carpet for the duration of the election. On top of that, we as citizens have responded and voted overwhelming to indicate that the US citizens still feel that this is one of our PERSONAL rights.

While this in no way indicates the setting of policy, it does show that the cantidates, and the supreme court are interested on what the people feel on this issue.

[Big Steve]

See how easy it was to vote on that!
I think that that everything should be voted for in the same way.
200 years ago we needed Senators and Representatives to vote for us because we were all spread out and there was no communication system.
Now that we can all get somewhere to vote we do not need them to vote for us.
I say we let them all come up with 2 or 3 laws a piece, per year. And we will vote on them ourselves. Then come election time if we think they are wasting our time , vote them out.
I think we should be our own voice in Washington!
Steve

[Mike Mizz]

No, it was GOD who gaves us the God given right to defend ourselves as a species to the death with whatever tools we have at the time, and if some lost in the 60's peacenick tells you different, you tell him about 19-24 year old kids fighting for the right for them to protest against the war.........dumb sons of bitches.

[SteelCore]

astute observation...

[ctdemolay0405]

except we arnt a democracy, and thats what everyone deciding is. we're a republic. not that i have a problem with either, but most complete democracy's fail, we're still alive... .for now

[ctdemolay0405]

TUESDAY MARCH 18th is the day that the Supreme Court will hear the case, starting at 10am

[k98k792]

i nominate steelcore as our general for the impending war, if it comes to unorganized militias fighting

He would make us train with swords,or battle axes or something. Probably at cocktail time.
I'm too old for that.

[GearHD]

It sure would be nice to be able to build a weapon w/o having to throw away 1/2 the parts. F/A might be nice to, if ammo & gas prices come down as well.

[sequoia1308]

In Black Laws Legal Dictionary the definition of Infringe is Regulate, this is one of two books I show up for jury duty with and I'm always told to go home we don't want your kind the other book is the jurys right hand book. I just wonder being a Firearm owner in Amercia Today is this how the Jews in Nazi Germany felt when they where told "Don't Worry" , these new set of gun control laws are not about whats happened in the past but whats in store for are childrens future I hope I'm wrong but I FEAR I'm not, for I know History repetes its self

[SteelCore]

"nominate steelcore as our general for the impending war, if it comes to unorganized militias fighting"

-->Uh, thanks...I ... guess.

"He would make us train with swords, or battle axes or something. Probably at cocktail time. I'm too old for that."

-->Neh, only if the bullets run out. And spears and bows and rocks are easier to make and use than swords and axes. As for at cocktail time, brewers and cooks do as much for morale as warfighters on the lines do, so if you're one of those yer off the hook, K98! ;)

[Rampager]

This case illustrates just how important Supreme Court judges are to us. Who is it that nominates the SC judges?…the President. This is why elections do matter.

GWB, whether you love him or hate him did nominate (and got approval) of 2 very good SC judges for us… John Roberts and Samual Alito.

Just imagine for one moment if Gore would have won back in 2000, what kind of judges we would have now…who would he have picked as nominees? I shudder to think about it. We'd have a very different SC right now that is for sure. I'm glad this case made it to the SC now and not later.

[cfish]

The outcome is going to be one of two ways. Either the SC views it as individual rights or we go to war with those who come to take our arms. If the SC views it as collective we will have 2 options hand over our weapons or stand for what most here know to be right. The second ammendment can only be interpreted as being an individual right if the SC has any knowledge of the founders Ideas of the 2nd amm. Read the federalist papers # 29 and 26 and it is very clear the intent of the second amm.As Charelton Heston has stated " From my cold dead hand". If they take them away we will no longer be free men only subjects, the very thing we fought over 232 years ago

[SteelCore]

Here's the OTHER thing that scares me abt SC ruling on an inalienable right.

Even if the SC upholds the 2nd as they freakin' well better, now there is a Supreme Courl ruling on the books. Supreme Court Rulings CAN be overturned, and have before.

Therefore, even by the SC ruling in our favor on this, they've now opened the door for a future SC to OVERTURN the ruling, which would negate the ruling altoghether. Maybe this was the plan from the get go on this whole thing.


Next up, the SC rules on your right to free speech.:eek:
:catcorn:

If this doesn't scare you, Here's a detailed acct of how once you start down the slippery slope, there is a point of no return:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html
"ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA"

[cfish]

Steelcore,
The SC has already stated that you don't have a right to free speech. When they upheld the Mcain Feingold ammendment regarding political speech they seriously infringed on our right to free speech. I agree with the M/F ammendment in its concept of trying to keep big money from squelching the little guys but it was taken to far and now limits our right to free speech. I applaud Mcain for his dedication and devotion to our country and his service to it but he will be a very bad President if elected and I bet he is the next Pres.

[jlpskydive]

AND the majority of the House also supports Heller just heard it on the news!!!! :America::America: I'm now looking for the brief for a link. Good sign or Kiss of Death?????

Link here http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5523693.html

[jlpskydive]

AP Texas News



Feb. 7, 2008, 7:51PM
Hutchison urging court to overturn D.C. gun bans


By SUZANNE GAMBOA Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments (1) Recommend
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who might start a run for Texas governor next year, has mustered support from a majority of Senate and House members to help persuade the Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia's gun laws.

Hutchison said Thursday she is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in a challenge to the laws. Fifty-five senators and 250 House members have signed the brief to be filed Thursday by her and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.

Hutchison has long opposed the district's ban on handguns and requirement that rifles and shotguns be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. She has sponsored legislation several times to overturn the district's laws. Her 2004 bill passed the House, but not the Senate.

The district's law forced her to dismantle and return to Texas her .357 Magnum she brought with her when she moved from Austin.

"In Texas, of course, the right to keep and bear arms is well-settled. In fact, when in Texas you talk about gun control, they mean using two hands," Hutchison quipped in a speech organized by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

A federal appeals court ruled in March that the district's ban is an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

The district appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. Hutchison argues it is an individual right. The court is expected to hear arguments next month.

"All of the congressional legislative history is assuming that the Second Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right and for a city or state to thwart this by taking a person's right in their home to have a loaded gun, just seemed to be a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm this individual right that Congress has acknowledged throughout its history," Hutchison said.

Tester said the writers of the Constitution did not intend for laws to be applied to some people and not others or to be applied some times and not others.

"We cannot restrict the right to bear arms just like we can't restrict the right to practice religion or the right of a free and independent press," Tester said.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the congressional delegate for Washington, D.C., said Hutchison's brief is an attempt to get done in the courts what she couldn't get done in Congress. Norton and others have filed friend-of-the court briefs in support of the law.

Norton said the rules have been supported by all four mayors the district has had since it got home rule and has not been opposed by any City Council members.

"This is entirely a home rule, self-government matter. That is not anybody's business but our own," Norton said.

Hutchison said she's willing to accept some restrictions on the Second Amendment, in the same way the right to free speech does not allow a person to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house. She said she hopes the case will similarly set a standard for how far the district can go in restricting guns without infringing on a person's right to defend themselves in their home.

___

On the Net: U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[GearHD]

Kay Bailey is a good incumbent if there is a such thing. I hope she runs for Governor because the Gov. we have now is a real "Turd".

[robocop10mm]

Not bad Kay. A UT cheerleader that actually is making a difference in the world. She has not been the best possible Senator but, would make a better Governor than the Aggie that we have now.

[Phirebug]

bailey's got my vote. this is good news :)

i love this state more and more every day.

[SteelCore]

"All of the congressional legislative history is assuming that the Second Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right and for a city or state to thwart this by taking a person's right in their home to have a loaded gun, just seemed to be a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm this individual right that Congress has acknowledged throughout its history,"

Right on. The onnly thinng I see is the wording "home" as a loophole. In otherwords, the DC gun ban may be ruled as unconstitutional, but they may caveat that by saying "OK, you can have an assembled, loaded gun in your home, but no CCW for you"

That would suck for law-biding, gun owning DCers.

[hunter_la5]

she just won me over!

[mistersquiggles]

Not bad Kay. A UT cheerleader that actually is making a difference in the world. She has not been the best possible Senator but, would make a better Governor than the Aggie that we have now.
you mean Zoolander, Governor "how's my hair" perry?..... he's definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.....

[ctdemolay0405]

even if she isnt... she got a majory of the senate and alot of congress to say "yep, 2nd amendment is an individual right" which would be a vote if my book if i lived in TX... she's done our country a good thing

[jettag]

700 million small arms won't 'go away' & I believe some 80% of them are known to be owned privately by INDIVIDUALS.

Let's see:
World's armed individuals-560Mil
World's standing armies-140Mil

Why can't i remember where I got this info? Jane's or Mother Jones?

Anyone confirming this data gets a cookie.

[nowhereman]

700 million small arms won't 'go away' & I believe some 80% of them are known to be owned privately by INDIVIDUALS.

Let's see:
World's armed individuals-560Mil
World's standing armies-140Mil

Why can't i remember where I got this info? Jane's or Mother Jones?

Anyone confirming this data gets a cookie.
Yes and as much as I would like to believe that these individual would pick up there guns and fight an overzealous govment I just don't feel that will happen. They took them away in New Orleans and they will take them away anywhere they wan't too. That is for the acception that a few of us would actually fight for our rights.... I think most of us here are on the same page....

[Thauglor]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0722998120080311

The hearing is set for this Tuesday. Found that on digg, a news website of sorts. One of the comments made by a poster is pretty good:

When the first amendment says "the people" have a right to assemble it means all the people and not just government-sanctioned organizations. Right?
When the fourth amendment says "the people" are not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, that means all the people and not just whomever the government ddecides. Right?
When the fifth amendment says "no person" shall be put into double jeopardy or be forced to testify against himself, "person" means everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
When the eighth amendment says cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted, that applies to everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
So why, when the second amendment says "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms do some people think it's meant to apply only to the people whom the government selects?
Interesting comments to read at the site: http://digg.com/politics/Right_to_bear_arms_at_heart_of_high_court_case

[SteelCore]

I have always been totally pissed that everyone can agrere that the other amendments are correct and clear, but then they act like the brilliant Framers somehow FOOKED this ONE VERY IMPORTANT one all up?!?!?!

WAKE UP PPL!!!:America:

Example of the press pandering:

"The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service."

-->Somebuddy needs a bit of a mandible massage from my pimp stick when I read this disgraceful blather.



odd structure...antiquated punctuation...what, I gotta say "Yo, law-biatchez! Diz be like, inalienabable, ya know, mai Rightz up in heah, so STEP dafukk OFF!..or "Yo ese, ustedes no damanos la control del armas."

[SteelCore]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0722998120080311?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, filed a brief with the justices that adopted many arguments made previously by legal scholars for an individual right to keep arms.

He said placement of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights reinforced the view that it was intended to put certain individual private activities beyond the reach of the national government.
__Absofarkinlutely.
Others disagreed, including 15 dumbarse historians.

"As histories of the Revolutionary era, we are confident ... that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms," they said.

Three professors of linguistics and English said the amendment's purpose was to preserve or perpetuate a well-regulated militia and that it used unmistakably military language.
-->Uh, gee, couldn't leave school, ya armchair rights-grabber?
"The term 'bear arms' is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," they said in citing the Oxford English Dictionary.
-->Waitwaitwait...So I'll say okay, I'd say bear arms means carrying arms in plain view, otherwise it would be "bear arms in service". also, why did you 'learned scholars' avoid the Keep part of "keep and bear arms?" Prolly because it was too explixit and you couldn't build any wish-washiness out of it, huh? HUH? HUH!

[ctdemolay0405]

how long till you think they release thier verdict? obviously not tommrow, but do u think it will be soon, or take a long time/hold it just to help the gun-grabing jerkoffs in charge in DC prosecute more people.

[Woodman in MO]

I'd plan on weeks or months of waiting....

[ctdemolay0405]

well, we have to know by the end of april/june-ish dont we? they have to release the verdict by the end of the supreme court "season"

[brewskzilla]

Time to chime in...
Why would the liberals want to ban firearms? They send their propaganda fiends out to make the general public believe that firearme, not human greed and villainy, are the reason that there are criminals in this world. Why? Because they either have an agenda that includes disarming the public so they can take even more rights afterward, which may seem far fetched, but it's really not, or they really dont know that you can't make crime disappear. They want a solution to a problem that has no solution. Criminals have been around since the beginning of time, and they will be here until the end of time. Some people, however, gloriously deluded though they be, actually think that there is something out there that, if done, will end crime.

Anyone here remember the movie Equalibrium? Remember how they forced the anti-emotion drug on everyone and as a result nobody was selfish or greedy and crime vanished? Well there are some people out there that think such immediate results could be accomplished if they just find the right solution, and unfortunately, right now they think banning guns is that solution.

I'm telling you, liberals are retarded. When are you going to believe me?

[SCGrotz]

i think we all already believe you, and that was a good movie.

[OrygunKid]

I'm telling you, liberals are retarded. When are you going to believe me?

I believe you!!:thumbup:

[TaosBob101]

Well....Day of Days is here ! The SCOTUS starting to hear arguments at 11:00 EST. :icon_neutral:

Good Luck to all of us. :America:

[ctdemolay0405]

i got a text that it's on CSPAN, but i dont have a tv at work... damnit!

[Woodman in MO]

http://www.c-span.org/

[turbothis]

watching now.....

[hackrider]

listening now also. The Attorney for Heller just threw "machineguns" out as not an appropriate weapon for an individual and should not be allowed for civilian use.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH I wonder if he will also say semiauto are inappropriate for civilian use?

Hack

[turbothis]

how long is this?

[turbothis]

submitted? what just happened?

[SteelCore]

I can't connect...drat. I'lll have to find transcripts somewhere.

Libs want to ban firarms so when they finish selling our asses to the global economy they can dissolve the rest of the bill of rights so we citizens cannot defend our sovereignity from other nations, because they will totally own us. With that, the deatl of the state based on the individual's rights will be gone, and we can alll work for the more productive collective, and we'll make great slaves and servants.:icon_neutral:

CTD< they will decide in June.

[ctdemolay0405]

well, they may decide on it soon, but they dont HAVE to release thier decision till june (unless that video says otherwise)

[wwIIBuff]

It seems like we may have the SCOUS on our side after what Kennedy said

[MID]

This is bullshit
they generally agree, that the 2nd gives individual rights to bear arms.
But say they are not going to make a ruling on the dc case.

[cfish]

Again I will say this I truly believe we will prevail in the SC. There is just to much ammunition( no pun intended) ok a little, on our side of this issue. Even one of the most liberal law professors from Harvard has written several law revues about the 2nd amendment and he has stated clearly that the individual has the right own firearms. Heck even the man himself who wrote the 2nd has numerous quotes regarding the individual right to own guns. Its pretty hard to argue with that.

[tumbleweed1002]

And it has not hurt us that the lawyer fo D.C. sounded like a compleat moron!

[ctdemolay0405]

And it has not hurt us that the lawyer fo D.C. sounded like a compleat moron!

as most people from dc are wont to do...... myself included

[97th Signalman]

I listened to the entire session of oral arguments today live on cable. DC is trying to say that local governments have a right to regulate weapons to suit their local circumstances and does not want to broaden the argument as to whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individaul right or one reserved for the militia. Heller's attorneys (and NRA)take a broader view and want the court to finally review the essence of the 2nd amendment and rule that it preserves the individual citizens right to keep and bear arms.

I think that the Court may well rule in against the local DC government's authority to regulate according to local conditions but wimp out by failing to rule on whether or not the 2nd amendment protects individual rights. This is my humble and somewhat cynical opinion. Lawyers love to leave enough things unsetteled so as to perpetuate the argument. I'll tell you this; Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg ain't going to help us at all.

[Old Jimmy]

I have been listening to this and they argue over the meaning of EVERY single word. I cannot stand anyone doing these kind of things for "my personal safety" as they put it. Maybe next month they will talk about outlawing trains and semis and deer since they do so much damage to Yugos in accident studies. Also argueing that if you were over 45 you were too old for a milita.

Old Jimmy

[k98k792]

transcript
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotus-guns-20080318.pdf

[rideronthestorm]

Even if they just prevent local governments from restricting the 2nd will be a significant win. It would throw out all of the restrictive state laws as well. Getting congress to agree to changing federal gun law would be hard for gun grabbers, especially with the polarized congress.

I also hope that they rule on individual rights. The term "the people" is used widely in the Bill of Rights. In all other places it is taken to include individual rights as well as collective rights. Failing to address that part of the 2nd opens the door to arguments against the rest of our rights.

[rustypirate]

I don't know, they all seem to be leaning towards accepting that the individual has the right, but the government can impose whatever restrictions they feel are reasonable.

Nearly everyone accepted that the DC ban was NOT reasonable, but I don't like the idea that they might open the door for local agencies to dictate what is "reasonable"

[okie shooter]

Most test cases are double edged swords, they givith and takith away. Thus some will be partly happy with some parts, and may hate others.

[SteelCore]

The one that K98 posted is 108 pages, this one from the gov site is 110...I wonder what 2 pages they took out?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Also, it liiks good for the rights of the individual, check this out!

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns
WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

Now, the important thing is that they affirm that the rights of the individual are 'the people' (DUH!), and then they spent the rest of the time trying to figure out how to strike some sort of balance so that they would not reverse 80 yrd of standing gov't regulation on guns.

So I guess there's gonna be some regulation, much as there is, so don't expect there to be a 'silencers for all' kinda thing or an ending of the barrel ban...unless someone later argues that these infringe their rights to self-defense, which would be next to impossible, given hown many obtainable guns are already in-country.

Fulll article here:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VG4TBG2&show_article=1

[cfish]

Went to the NRA ILA web site and listened to the entire case. I think Rusty has it correct. I think most of the justices were leaning towards individual rights but a few were also stressing the point of Gov't control's of one flavor or another. I think ultimately they will rule for the individual right but hold that the gov't can impose reasonable controls. Although they were finding it hard to get away from the fact that all supporting documentation lends credence to the fact that we as citizens per the militia clause are allowed to own weapons suitable for use in our national defense. This is going to get very interesting and a lot of skating on thin ice will happen.

[Rampager]

I listened to the opening arguments and I’m liking what I’m hearing so far.

First off thank you, GWB for appointing SC Justice Roberts and Alito. If this comes down in our favor it will be undoubtedly because of these wise men tipping the scales.

My guess is they will rule in favor of individual rights, as in a lawful citizen has the right to keep lawful arms in his home. But they will still leave some wiggle room for the states to make some restrictions. The devil will be in the details.

[hunter_la5]

so who is going to define what a "reasonable restriction" is? :icon_neutral:

[tanstaafl4y]

so who is going to define what a "reasonable restriction" is? :icon_neutral:


Newspapers under 27 pages would be a reasonable restriction for urban readers...but us country folk only get 4 pages...NASCAR, Church Announcements, 'Coupins', and farm reports

//I for one have been looking at the new Miriam Webster Unabridged dictionary with kydex covers and rails for mounting my reading light.

///Hurray for Roberts!

[rideronthestorm]

Other constitutional rights are held to the standard of safety of the people. That's the whole point of ACLU suits. You can say anything you want as long as it doesn't call for violence. So I would expect a new "assault weapon" ban to fail constitutional test as it does nothing to protect the public. Limitations on what firearms can be used for home defense would probably pass as public safety is at issue. It would be real interesting if DC found it had to ban powerful rifles but let people use handguns or handgun based rifles.

Does anyone have any idea when the justices will issue their final ruling?

[SteelCore]

BIG +1!

I think 'reasonable restrictions' from what I read would be like the full autos still being regulated as they are, but not hi-cap bans or that BS.

[Otis61]

BIG +1!

I think 'reasonable restrictions' from what I read would be like the full autos still being regulated as they are, but not hi-cap bans or that BS.

I'm hopfull, but ???????

[cfish]

Steelcore I think you may be right. But lets not forget that the militia part, and we are the militia, will be hard for them to get around as far as reasonable guns go. We are supposed to be able to own, as individuals, at least the same long arms as the standing army. Thats why the issue of machine guns kept coming up yesterday. I think they will find it very difficult to spin this in a way that allows them to regulate to strictly.

[Rampager]

I will add my fear is they may get too descriptive and state what type of firearm a citizen may own (ie non military) and in doing so may cause “assault” type weapons to be open for out right bans.

What I mean is...if they say anything like a citizen has the right to own a non-military type firearm (possible SC's intent as in machine guns restrictions.), the antis will take that and run with it even though we and most rational people know the differance, which will thus open up another can of worms. This is my only fear.

Mag capacity and action type will still be open for debate and local restrictions IMHO.

[rustypirate]

I will also like to point out that the Judges did not see it as reasonable to limit the NUMBER of guns a person can have. Additionally the question of gun COLLECTORS came up with the argument being that it would not be UNREASONABLE for a collector to wish to obtain different models of the same type of gun.

I also agree that the argument was made that citixens should have access to the same arms as the military, but the counter-argument was put forth that a citizen-militia was comprised of civilians and would be expected to arm themselves with guns typical for CIVILIAN ownership.

This may counter the machine-guns-for-all possibility.

[SteelCore]

Is making me hungry...I'm headin' home fer pork chops, sauerkraut, and german potato salad.

L8r!

[rustypirate]

I really think that wat may come out of this is that the individual' rights will extend to everything but full-auto, silencers, and destructive devices.

Everything else falls under the use of either hunting, self defence, or sport usage. There may also be some accomodation for collectors with C&R licenses.

[Woodman in MO]

but the counter-argument was put forth that a citizen-militia was comprised of civilians and would be expected to arm themselves with guns typical for CIVILIAN ownership.

This may counter the machine-guns-for-all possibility.

That's kind of a catch-22. If you limit the arms that citizens can have, then yes machine-guns wouldn't be typical, but thats only because of the limit.

[Thauglor]

I totally agree Woodman. The only reason that machine-guns wouldn't be allowed to civilians is because not everyone has one, but that is because they are so limited already. But what about sub-machine guns, wouldn't those then be reasonable because they are not rifle caliber, so are "less dangerous." Why is the government so afraid of law abiding citizens having full autos? What event prompted the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 86 that stopped full auto production for civilians?

Plus, don't they know that if they allowed more machine guns to be produced for the citizens, they would get a lot more money from the tax on the ammo sold to feed them. Full autos are one hungry beasts.

[ctdemolay0405]

jsut finished listeneing to the whole hearing - gotta love how the chief justice and alito and some others were bashing DC left and right, and only really ginsberg and souter were against us (if i remember correctly.... i probably dont). one thing i dont understand is they keep asking if a pistol is a military firearm, and i'm not in the military, and those of you who are please correct me if i'm wrong, but arnt people issued pistols specifically FOR self-defense - that its not usually the primary offensive weapon? anyways... i dont know why they didnt mention, when talking about statistics, that crime is always higher with more gun restrictions, etc. but hey, i'm no lawyer. also, why did our side's lawyer keep talking about machine guns - thats a battle for a differnt day, isnt it? anyways, from what i heard, our side won that battle, but who knows by how far.

[Woodman in MO]

I kind of got the impression that the solicitor general was making the arguement that they can rule this is an individual right and overturn the law and that it doesn't mean that everyone will then have the right to just go out and buy a full auto.

[ctdemolay0405]

shame, cause we all should have fully auto and silenced weapons



in fact, the gov't should provide us with MP5-SDs

[Perro]

there are reasonable restrictions placed on just about every right

some very common examples that everyone uses in these types of arguments
libel is illegal - it is a type of speach, but its still illegal even though you have freedom of speech, just not ALL types of speach are legal

it is also illegal to commit murder even though your religion believes in human sacrifice - but you have the freedom of religion but part of your religious beliefs may be "reasonably restricted"

you can bet your bottom dollar that machine guns, destructive devices, and the like will also be "reasonably restricted as well" and that means can be made illegal if they want them to be.

my sincerest hope for the outcome is that they say individual right (which most everyone agrees will probably be the outcome), but they will also say its ok to have reasonable restrictions, and they actually allow for REASONABLE restrictions and not just an outright ban. i also hope that since even ginsburg was questioning if carrying a liscense would be considered reasonable that it will then be legal to buy new made autos with a certain type of license, and that the liscense will be considered reasonable restriction enough

if that happens, i would assume that they would raise the NFA tax a HUGE amount cause taxing this stuff isnt illegal for sure. It is currently not illegal to own or buy full auto guns in SOME states that allow it, but you will pay a $200.00 transfer tax to do so (which was made in 1939 when $200.00 was out of reach of most americans and that is how they kept common people from owning the stuff without banning it outright). id have to believe they will probably raise the NFA tax to something a little more out of reach of most americans

one thing is CERTAIN - the .gov is scared shitless of losing 922 (o) its clear by how many times they mentioned MGs in there arguments

one last point i would like to make - i read somewhere here that someone thinks that yesterday was opening arguments, and id like to add thats ALL the arguments there will be - no more lawyers arguing anything, they have presented the case, and the supreme court justices will now take it back and study it and they will issue there ruling probably some time in june before they go on recess - there will be no more arguing, or fixing the mistakes presented by either side - that was it, now we wait for the justices decisions
most are predicting at least a 5-3 on individual right
lets hope there ruling on "reasonable restrictions" is actually reasonable

[rideronthestorm]

I doubt full auto will be allowed everyone. The public safety issue would apply. Safety is used quite a bit with other amendments, such as the first. You can say almost anything but you can't promote committing a crime..

PS. It looks like Pieto covered the same point I was going to make, at the same time. I completely agree.

[ctdemolay0405]

couldnt someone argue that a higher tax (indeed any tax) could be considered an unreasonable restriction if it does, in effect, produce an all out ban (which was the goal of the 200 doller tax in 1939, that almost noone would get said items)?

[ctdemolay0405]

I doubt full auto will be allowed everyone. The public safety issue would apply. Safety is used quite a bit with other amendments, such as the first. You can say almost anything but you can't promote committing a crime..

and yet, kids get prosecuted for wearing a t-shirt with a gun on it, but if its got pot on it, its a-ok

[Perro]

couldnt someone argue that a higher tax (indeed any tax) could be considered an unreasonable restriction if it does, in effect, produce an all out ban (which was the goal of the 200 doller tax in 1939, that almost noone would get said items)?

hardly

its not illegal to tax machine guns
wasnt in 1939, and isnt today

they can say yes, you can own machine guns, BUT, we are going to put a $5,000.00 tax on them on top of there cost.
that does not infringe on your ownership, or the ability to use the firearm one bit, and the second ammendment says nothing about reasonable restrictions. it says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - doesnt say nothing about your ability to afford such arms

the supreme court have been asked to decide a few things in this case

they are deciding on if its an individual right or collective
if its ok for dc to ban posession and use of handguns in your home for self defense (is the second related to a militia only use, or can you use guns for home defense)
and what are reasonable restrictions on that right if any

we all need to pray that there definition of "reasonable" means that licensing is OK, and maybe even proficiency tests are OK, but an outright ban is NOT OK (and that pertains to pistols, machine guns, destructive devices, SBR, SBS etc)

[Perro]

and ctdemolay - in order to understand why they were asking if a pistol was a military firearm

you need to read US V. Miller

Miller argues that sawed off shotguns are of the type of firearm used by the military and thats why its OK for miller to have it because the second ammendment guarantees him the right to have the same types of firearms that the military had

[Woodman in MO]

I think you could make an argument that the tax is an infringement on your rights. Suppose the put that tax on all firearms?

infringement on which right, to KEEP, or to BEAR firearms?
keep meaning to not have them taken away, or to bear meaning to use them? Which part of that does taxing it infringe?

if the second ammendment said to keep, bear, and be able to afford reasonably priced firearms shall not be infringed i could understand that argument

And they do put a tax on all firearms - sales tax if you buy it within your state, and you must pay for the background check of the 4473. if you are an FFL you owe fees for the licensing every couple years, and if you manufacture firearms you owe FAET on every firearm you manufacture - so, why is it ok to tax you for sales tax, and for excise tax but not to transfer a firearm?


Just curious, cause i believe this was hashed out in 1934 (i said 39 earlier, but should have said 1934 - im very tired)

[Perro]

damn woodman, i accidentally edited your post - i thought i was making a new post but i guess i edited your post (i still have those priveledges with my account)

i appologize for that - im exhausted

MY post should have read
infringement on which right, to KEEP, or to BEAR firearms?
keep meaning to not have them taken away, or to bear meaning to use them? Which part of that does taxing it infringe?

if the second ammendment said to keep, bear, and be able to afford reasonably priced firearms shall not be infringed i could understand that argument

And they do put a tax on all firearms - sales tax if you buy it within your state, and you must pay for the background check of the 4473. if you are an FFL you owe fees for the licensing every couple years, and if you manufacture firearms you owe FAET on every firearm you manufacture - so, why is it ok to tax you for sales tax, and for excise tax but not to transfer a firearm?


Just curious, cause i believe this was hashed out in 1934 (i said 39 earlier, but should have said 1934 - im very tired)

[hunter_la5]

hardly

they can say yes, you can own machine guns, BUT, we are going to put a $5,000.00 tax on them on top of there cost.
that does not infringe on your ownership

wasn't the poll tax considered an unreasonable infringement on people's right to vote?

[Woodman in MO]

wasn't the poll tax considered an unreasonable infringement on people's right to vote?


That's what I said before Perro edited my post...:wink:

[SteelCore]

"I really think that what may come out of this is that the individual' rights will extend to everything but full-auto, silencers, and destructive devices."

-->So do you think that they will allow the individual to buy SBRs and AOWs now, without any hindrance? That would be uber kool! Krinks and gunswords fer all!


"one thing is CERTAIN - the .gov is scared shitless of losing 922 "

-->Oh, man...I'm reading the transcripts right now, haven't gotten to that yet. Boy would that rock...it'd prolly reverse the barrel ban...and the whole thing could really reduce the power of the Jackbooted thuggish ATFE!

One thing I do note while reading: These guys aren't you avg namby-pamby civil servants, sitting on theri hands all day and meting out a buncha crap. They've studied up, they're intelligent, and they have renewed my faith in the Judicial wing of the govt.

[Thauglor]

thats what I noticed too Steelcore. The Judges are actually intelligent, really different from other politicians.

[SteelCore]

They're calling up Blackstone, the Brit Bill of Rights of the 1680s (which never held water since it was never attached to a document as powerfuls as the Constitution, but it was a nice try), the prohibition to highlanders of weapons after the Jacobite rebellion, and so on.

I just finished reading ti last night, and Perro is right...Lotsa talk not just about handguns, but about machinne guns....lots.

[pelos]

SO if the supreme court does rule in our favor (individual right) what can we expect regarding alot of the gun laws

[MicroPilot]

In areas that have restrictive gun laws I expect that instead of banning guns, they'll try and eliminate ammunition. The claim will be that ammunition isn't protected by the Constitution.

[brewskzilla]

What you will probably see is new laws that regulate motive. Like the anti-hate crime laws that they passed about ten years ago. It's all give and take. We'll loosen up here, but we have to tighten up there, to keep the lefties somewhat sedated. An attack on ammo would be obvious, and they know it, so I'm thinking they'll go after something like Toting under the influence, or you can have guns, but if you have a child in the house it has to be triple locked, guaranteeing that it takes at least five minutes to get it out in the case that you need it. Stupid stuff like that that they couldn't enforce in a million years. OR... you have to send one fired bullet from each gun you own to the authorities so they can take "forensic fingerprints" making it easier to track down guns used in crimes... There's no telling what retarded laws the lefties will insist on if they are forced to admit that the Constitution overrules their opinions...

[ctdemolay0405]

they'll do like CT and MA have, first institute thier own AWBs and then go after AMMO by taxing the hell out of it, maybe..... why cant the gov't stop the $hit with the dumb laws that nobody but the liberals who are scared of everything and cant to a thing for themselves buy whine care about

[ctdemolay0405]

so, there are 6 possible days for the SCOTUS to rule on DC v Heller: June 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 23


what's gunna happen!?!?!?!

the suspense is killing us

[SteelCore]

I know...the suspense hangs thick in the air...

Oh, wait..that's just the humidity here.

They'll prolly wait until the last possible second to call this one...the whole nation, andti and pro guns, is watching.

[ctdemolay0405]

yea, (also, for the other threads on this subject.... can they just be merged?)

[SteelCore]

only belongs to the mods...we mere mortals can not know of such things...it is unnatural!:kookaid:

[rustypirate]

All threads regarding the Supreme court ruling on the RKBA have been merged here by ME!

[ctdemolay0405]

haha, werd, thanks rusty

[mistersquiggles]

well they ruled on Gitmo today.... onoy 2 things left to rule on..... how much ya wanna bet that the heller decision is gonna be the LAST ruling for the quater?

[Grasshopper]

I think we need to get the tar and feathers ready just in case, these commies have been in power too long to care about us little people. This might be just the thing "W" needs to suspend the Constitution, civil unrest with a bunch of gun toting citizens, yelling at them.
Don't trust them at all, not at all.
Now, on the same subject, what are all them Marines doing running around Illinoi for and what are the feds doing in Portsmith NH with ninjas running around? These eople have deploied the military all around the country at this time. Nope, I don't trust them at all.:America::America::sparta:

[ctdemolay0405]

with the decision looming tommrow, thursday or next tuesday... how will the freedom-hatings-SOBs prevent people from getting guns (they will try in DC)

i'm waiting for them to say "you may only have open carreid single shot .22 short derringers with 3 redundant safetys" i'd buy one (if there was one, or have turbo make me one)

[ctdemolay0405]

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/what_to_watch_f_1.html#more

[SteelCore]

Put down the tinfoil, folks, there's nothing to be alarmed about..."W" will not suspend the Constitution, we all have our own copies (dont' you?) and our will and means to enforce it.

The USMC is training for the Month of June in IN and IL, so I see a lot of blue/gray Chinooks flying around town. Practhicing counter-terror urban tactics, datsall.

My prediction is much as Perro's was months ago...they'll prolly overturn the DC ban, and call all other existing measures set "within reason as is."

This prolly means the bbl and import bans will remain in place, much to my chagrin...

but the groundwork for other definitions of 'within reason' may now be brought up over the next months/years.

Keep your rifles crossed on this.

[MicroPilot]

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/what_to_watch_f_1.html#more

Excellent reading at that link. Thanks ctdemolay! :thumbup:

[Grasshopper]

What hat?????
My point about the military running around the country was to get people thinking. I know the Millitary isn't the boogie man. I have to say though that our leaders, such as Feinstien, Fatboy, Shuma, Cheertove, Gates, and the rest of that bunch wouldn't try to ull something and I know that the military leaders that survived the Klinton purges arn't all Globalists.:America::icon_biggrin:

[pelos]

Have They Ruled Yet

[SteelCore]

It will be the shot heard round the world when they do.

[MicroPilot]

What hat?????
My point about the military running around the country was to get people thinking. ...

Ever see the movie "Seven Days in May"?

[pigpen]

I hear they are to release the opinion tomorrow.

[SteelCore]

win

[DaCapster]

A 5-4 win... that in itself is scary. Should have been 9-0.

[Aodhfin]

A 5-4 win... that in itself is scary. Should have been 9-0.

As the ruling was specifically for the individual Heller I can see the divide along ideological lines. The 2A aspect was just kind of dragged into it. I was half afraid of them ruling specifically on just the DC gun ban and not saying anything about the 2A - which would have left us hanging again.

[cfish]

A 5-4 win... that in itself is scary. Should have been 9-0.


Yes that is very scary to say the least. I was expecting something like 6-3 or even 7-2 not the 5-4. Unbelievable how the dissenting Justices are really political hacks. They are trying their damnedest to legislate from the bench.