Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 25, 2008, 03:46:38 PM
We have closed the previous thread (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1680) and will open this one for new comments.
Post by: DDMac on June 25, 2008, 04:19:59 PM
Mac.
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 26, 2008, 07:32:08 AM
Post by: cookie62 on June 26, 2008, 07:36:32 AM
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 09:14:30 AM
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
Post by: BigSaucy on June 26, 2008, 09:19:29 AM
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 09:25:43 AM
Here's the opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 09:43:03 AM
From the SCOTUS blog:
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violatrion of denying any access to a handgun.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 09:50:52 AM
Quotes from the opinion:
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
”In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
Post by: Ksail101 on June 26, 2008, 09:52:17 AM
Does this mean we all the right to carry a firearm as long as we have a license?
And also you must have a license to have a loaded gun in your home. Here in WA State it is legal to have a firearm concealed and loaded in ones home and fixed place of Business. Will these laws change? Or is this just a line drawn that no law can be passed to ban firearms past this point? Like this is as heavy of a resriction that one state can pass on Lawful gun owners.
Post by: PEOM on June 26, 2008, 10:08:45 AM
Headline on Fox News Online: "Supreme Court Backs Gun Owners in Historic Case"
Headline on CNN Online: "High court strikes down gun ban"
Media bias anyone?
Post by: kdcyyz on June 26, 2008, 10:18:15 AM
Post by: twyacht on June 26, 2008, 10:21:45 AM
Why is it a crime ridden area you idiot!!! The criminals have all the guns. Respectfully, Breyer's an ass!
There simply is "NO" untouchable constitutional right guaranteed. :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I am breathing easier now, BUT this quote from Breyer, and others of his ilk, are scary.
He and others that view the Amendments as a "living, evolving" document got to go.
I can't believe I just read this.
I am glad of the ruling.
Post by: pgrass101 on June 26, 2008, 10:24:06 AM
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 10:24:22 AM
Only a 5 to 4 decision?
This wasn't about the constitution or case law. This was purely about political ideology. We have seen too many 5 to 4 decisions to think that the justices are concerned about anything but politics. There are 4 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges, and they are way too predictable about how they will side. Kennedy is the only middle of the road judge that is capable of being impartial. As he goes, so goes the decisions of the court.
This makes me sick. This was a clear cut constitutional decision to be made (forget about the crime statistics and whats best for the citizens). Only a 5 to 4 decision? We are truly living in a Judicial Monarchy!
Post by: Solus on June 26, 2008, 10:26:42 AM
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
I think this ruling will go a long way towards the case arguing that the need for self defense is greatest in crime ridden areas.
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 10:30:10 AM
Something I noticed.
Headline on Fox News Online: "Supreme Court Backs Gun Owners in Historic Case"
Headline on CNN Online: "High court strikes down gun ban"
Media bias anyone?
Hit!
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 10:33:02 AM
Mac.
Post by: shooter32 on June 26, 2008, 10:54:42 AM
A step in the right direction. :o :o ;D ;D
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 10:56:46 AM
John McCain issued the following statement regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban:
“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Source: Fox News
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 11:00:11 AM
NRA Moves on Chicago Ban; McCain Slams Chicago
The NRA has stated on Fox News that they are moving immediately against the Chicago handgun ban in the wake of the Heller decision.
Read more on Michael's blog (http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008/06/nra-moves-on-chicago-ban-mccain-slams.html)
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 11:15:07 AM
Post by: Michael Bane on June 26, 2008, 11:16:10 AM
Michael B
Post by: pioneer on June 26, 2008, 11:20:45 AM
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/NRA/charlton_heston2.jpg)
Great news indeed, but the fight is not over. This ruling, as it was designed, is just the first step. Now that we have this ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, we can now go forward with the fight to define "reasonable" restrictions.
Celebrate, by all means, but don't get complacent. The anti gunners are still with us, and they are very well funded and motivated.
Join in the fight. Join the NRA
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/NRA/join20nra.jpg)
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/NRA/join20nra.jpg)
Post by: Pathfinder on June 26, 2008, 11:21:04 AM
Judicial Monarchy!
Only a 5 to 4 decision?
This wasn't about the constitution or case law. This was purely about political ideology. We have seen too many 5 to 4 decisions to think that the justices are concerned about anything but politics. There are 4 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges, and they are way too predictable about how they will side. Kennedy is the only middle of the road judge that is capable of being impartial. As he goes, so goes the decisions of the court.
This makes me sick. This was a clear cut constitutional decision to be made (forget about the crime statistics and whats best for the citizens). Only a 5 to 4 decision? We are truly living in a Judicial Monarchy!
That was my first reaction as well - only 5-4? We were a Justice Kennedy away from losing this folks, and the Bradys et al. will use that to justify - somehow - draconian measures in other locales that will then take expensive lawsuits to overturn - assuming the judiciary recognizes the SCOTUS ruling. Remember that mope judge Weinstein in NYC who ignored Federal law and allowed Bloomberg's anti-gun case to continue against the gun manufacturers - only to be overturned, but more money spent to show the judge he was wrong.
Judicial tyranny indeed! >:( >:( >:(
Post by: blackwolfe on June 26, 2008, 11:24:11 AM
The first skirmish has just been won and has set the course for the remainder of the war.
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 26, 2008, 11:24:50 AM
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 26, 2008, 11:26:54 AM
That was my first reaction as well - only 5-4? We were a Justice Kennedy away from losing this folks, and the Bradys et al. will use that to justify - somehow - draconian measures in other locales that will then take expensive lawsuits to overturn - assuming the judiciary recognizes the SCOTUS ruling. Remember that mope judge Weinstein in NYC who ignored Federal law and allowed Bloomberg's anti-gun case to continue against the gun manufacturers - only to be overturned, but more money spent to show the judge he was wrong.
Judicial tyranny indeed! >:( >:( >:(
Remember, during the Revolution, after initial victories in Concord and forcing the British out of Boston we got our butts kicked a lot, until we finally won at Yorktown. This is the begining of a long fight toward victory. But like the British withdrawal from Boston it is the victory that will make all the others possible. ;D
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 11:28:34 AM
Some reactions to the historic Supreme Court ruling in D.C. v. Heller:
• Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says "this opinion still allows commonsense gun control laws, restrictions to make us all safer." He expects to see more challenges to existing restrictions on gun ownership.
• The Chicago Tribune says that state's "gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance."
• Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, says in a statement that he welcomes the decision. "Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," he says. "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."
• Slow down, Washingtonians. D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles tells The Washington Post that this morning's Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean you can just run out and buy a handgun. "All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said before the ruling was announced. He says the police department will issue new regulations within a month.
• Wayne LaPierre, a top official at the National Rifle Association, says his group will file lawsuits in San Francisco and Chicago, among other places. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," he tells the Associated Press.
• Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, calls the decision "one of the most important rulings in our lifetime."
• Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says people in his state "will be relieved and encouraged to see their rights recognized." "This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," he says in a statement.
• New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says in a statement that "fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans." He says local officials "have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations that allow for us to carry out those responsibilities."
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says the ruling destroys decades of precedent. "I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety," she says in a statement.
• Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, praised the ruling. "The Constitution plainly guarantees the solemn right to keep and bear arms, and the whims of politically-correct bureaucrats cannot take it away,” the House Republican leader says in a statement.
Source: USA Today
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 11:31:29 AM
Eric Cantor, United States Congressman
The hard work of millions of Second Amendment rights advocates has paid off in a tremendous way. Earlier today, in perhaps the most significant Second Amendment court decision in over 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down Washington, D.C.'s 32-year-old ban on hand guns. It affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family and their home. The ruling today will cast fresh light on the constitutionality of several other bans on firearms around the country.
This historic moment could not have been possible without the groundswell of attention and awareness you helped create.
As we move forward, we must remember the importance of appointing judges who respect our laws and interpret the Constitution as it was intended; our liberties and freedoms must never be compromised. This effort was a major victory for liberty.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 11:33:39 AM
I have waited a lot of years to hear these words...
Michael B
MB,
Do you know what level of scrutiny was used or recommended? I could not find it in the decision (other than the decent).
Post by: shooter32 on June 26, 2008, 12:25:48 PM
Post by: Pathfinder on June 26, 2008, 12:58:25 PM
MB,
Do you know what level of scrutiny was used or recommended? I could not find it in the decision (other than the decent).
<edited for color, typo corrections, to fit your screen and time allowed>
From MB's blog, he quotes the Volokh Conspiracy, which was actually cited 3-4 times in the ruling:
Initial Impressions from Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy law site is swamped, so here's Eugene Volokh's (who was cited in the ruling) initial impressions:
My basic thought after reading Justice Scalia's majority opinion is that it is relatively narrow -- in the sense that it leaves a lot for another day. It recognizes the individual right (citing, by my count, 3 articles by Eugene and one by Randy, not that we academics count such things), but does not resolve the degrees of scrutiny, does not address incorporation, and indicates (without establishing) that traditional gun restriction laws are valid.
I'm still reading...
Posted by Michael Bane at 9:54 AM 0 comments
Post by: Michael Bane on June 26, 2008, 12:59:51 PM
mb
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 01:04:58 PM
MB, I will be interested to hear the legal communities take on this.
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 01:39:25 PM
That was my first reaction as well - only 5-4? We were a Justice Kennedy away from losing this folks, and the Bradys et al. will use that to justify - somehow - draconian measures in other locales that will then take expensive lawsuits to overturn - assuming the judiciary recognizes the SCOTUS ruling. Remember that mope judge Weinstein in NYC who ignored Federal law and allowed Bloomberg's anti-gun case to continue against the gun manufacturers - only to be overturned, but more money spent to show the judge he was wrong.
Judicial tyranny indeed! >:( >:( >:(
Bullseye!
And where is the accountability? Where is the punishment of elected officials and activist judges for their abuse of power. You can't just push political ideology into the law of the land and then challenge someone to have enough capital to get it over turned in the courts.
This case never should have even made it to the supreme court. Where was the NRA? The DC gun ban was on the books for decades(1976). As far as I am concerned, for something like this to have to come down to one lone justice (Kennedy) means that the NRA was asleep at the wheel. What if he had been swayed the other way, or what if he had been a more liberal appointee? The implications of this going the other way would have been disastrous for the 2nd amendment. It would have given states/cities the power to nullify a major part of the constitution at their discretion.
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 01:54:24 PM
Quote
"As mayor of the District of Columbia, I think I speak for the near unanimous population here in this city when we say we're disappointed, we wish the ruling had gone the other way, but that we stand here and we respect the court's power to make this ruling and their deliberation that got them to this point,"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372283,00.html
Quote
It still will be illegal to carry handguns outside the home, and all pistols must be registered with police.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
Post by: jpr9954 on June 26, 2008, 02:25:31 PM
The cost is FREE. Just call 202-479-3211 ext 1 and ask for a printed copy of the slip opinion for Case 07-290 (DC v Heller). They will pop it in the mail to you. It might just become a collector's item some day. Of course, the preservation of our 2A rights was priceless.
John
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 02:26:21 PM
COMMENTARIES Washington D.C. v. Heller | ||
 | Host: Michael Bane Guest: Jim Shepherd 34:18 minutes 06/26/08 | |
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 02:30:13 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/protest1.jpg)
Just can't please everyone I guess.
Mac.
Post by: CLP on June 26, 2008, 02:45:37 PM
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c534ac38-eeea-8660-5c43-5425edff7133
Post by: shooter32 on June 26, 2008, 02:52:53 PM
Scrutiny not SPECIFICALLY stated, but reading into Scalia's wording indicates highest level of scrutiny...waiting to talk to David Hardy and Larry Keane later today...should have first podcast up — interview with Jim Shepherd, who used to cover the Supreme Court for NBC — will be up within the hour...
mb
Thanks for the great work you all are doing on this!!!!
Down Range Crew at their FINEST!!!!!
Post by: Ron J on June 26, 2008, 02:59:17 PM
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 03:18:42 PM
From CBS News:
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 03:22:29 PM
From AP:
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 03:25:17 PM
From Fox News:
Post by: Solus on June 26, 2008, 03:28:25 PM
I don't think they are gonna make this easy
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 03:31:13 PM
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 03:35:54 PM
Mac.
ps. The media and Anti gun politicians will use the establishment of individual safety through use of firearms as proof that "more guns means more violence! We told you so!!!"
Post by: CDR on June 26, 2008, 03:50:27 PM
Did I hear her say that Semi-Automatic firearms would not be legal in DC??
I don't think they are gonna make this easy
I replayed the tape twice on exactly this point as I couldn't believe my ears when she said semi automatics will not be permitted in DC. So this means even in home defense its revolvers only with respect to handguns?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 04:03:09 PM
It didn't take long to run into another dissenter who was protesting the Heller ruling. Just went out to share a HAZardous Margurita with my guard dog when I heard this guy demanding an end to varmint rifles!
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/protest1.jpg)
Just can't please everyone I guess.
Mac.
What went wrong? I don't see any holes in that varmint!
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 04:16:42 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/provguns600.jpg)
RKBA!!
Mac.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 04:19:48 PM
Note what Scalia said in his opinion about trigger locks.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J.
Mistake on Gura's part?
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 04:29:48 PM
Mac.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 04:33:48 PM
Post by: Neon Knight Anubis on June 26, 2008, 04:51:19 PM
A major battle has been won, but the war is still far from over. Even in saying that, we are bearing witness to history.
Raise a glass ya'll!
Post by: Michael Bane on June 26, 2008, 05:00:31 PM
I'm very impressed with the NRA's aggressiveness in going after the other bans, especially Chicago, Obama's home town.
This is a little like pest extermination...we have to track down each little gun control rat and stamp them out one at a time.
I believe this is more than any of us hoped for.
Michael B
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 05:03:55 PM
BTW I prefer to think of it as varmint control, you have to do some "long range, precision" thinking. ;D
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 26, 2008, 05:11:42 PM
"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 05:39:14 PM
From MSNBC:
Post by: ellis4538 on June 26, 2008, 05:51:24 PM
Richard
Post by: Michael Bane on June 26, 2008, 05:53:26 PM
LOL!
mb
Post by: kmitch200 on June 26, 2008, 05:53:58 PM
It's got to be hard to find something to be happy about, when 5 of the Supremes just kicked you sqarely in the nuts.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 05:56:19 PM
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 06:02:11 PM
On the radio pod cast with Jim Shepard he keeps saying it was decided under the 'strictest scrutiny'. Where is he getting that from?
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 06:35:01 PM
What's Next for Gun Control?
Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818325,00.html
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 26, 2008, 06:38:40 PM
What's next after Supreme Court's gun decision?
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201/story/42356.html
Post by: twyacht on June 26, 2008, 06:52:21 PM
If you get pulled over in DC with a burned out tail light, and you disclose to the LEO that you have firearms in the trunk or the back. Your still going to to have 4 or 5 more officers show up, take em', take you, impound your car, and release you 48 hours later....
Than you begin to PAY your way out of this BS.
The politicians will make it more dangerous to take the guns out of your home than defend yourself in public, because there will never be a concealed carry law passed in DC.
The ruling is a good thing, but the Dems can "regulate" it to a point almost as bad as a ban.
Post by: Ron J on June 26, 2008, 06:53:55 PM
Note what Scalia said in his opinion about trigger locks.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J.
Point being ... will any gun manufacturers take their internal locks off?
Post by: twyacht on June 26, 2008, 07:11:21 PM
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.
Knock, Knock:
Who's there?
Home invader...
One moment please I have to get my trigger lock key,,,, Oh its in the lockbox,,,,,
Knock, Knock!!!
Just a second while I find the key to the other lock box for the ammo and magazines.
BANG! Homeowner dead,.. Gun taken. Criminal could care less,......
Thank you Justice Scalia for being "a real world" person and not living in the "Brady Mentality Fog"
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 07:17:46 PM
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 07:23:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Quote
on June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C. gun ban, stating: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession violates the Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller
In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home", invalidating a D.C. gun control statute that had banned guns within D.C.[104]
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 07:28:46 PM
On this day of such special import, let us remember a great hero who helped bring us here. Charleston Heston gave us the courage to continue in this fight. It is sad that he couldn't be here to enjoy this glorious day.
"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
Perhaps he was. Unfinished business now concluded. Thanks for the reminder Rebel. A toast, and sincere thanks to Mr. Heston. All-American hero.
Mac.
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 26, 2008, 07:31:47 PM
I hope to be the first to call for a national celebration day to be inaugurated. It will be called "Gun Freedom Day" to be held on June 26 of each year going forward. Let the bells ring out. Let there be school children that assemble. Let old men like me weep. This day going forward citizens (what a beautiful word!) rejoice on this day!
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 07:33:25 PM
First, he supports it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
Then, he never supported it:
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9adb922d-40d8-4b05-9bc5-2fa987480823
Ouch! Thats gonna leave a mark.
Post by: DDMac on June 26, 2008, 07:49:37 PM
I now know what it must have felt like to be a slave when Abe signed the Proclamation. When women got the right to vote.
rejoice on this day!
Imagine the feeling of the usual crime victim in DC, settling in with what is left of their worldly possessions that first night with their .357 magnum revolver. A serenity most take for granted every day. How grand!
Mac.
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 07:52:13 PM
I now know what it must have felt like to be a slave when Abe signed the Proclamation. When women got the right to vote.
Now, don't go shooting your gun into the air in celebration or anything like that.
Yep, this 4th of July will be a great one!
Post by: m25operator on June 26, 2008, 08:03:59 PM
Everyone enjoy this moment, and tommorrow take a big breath, Exhale and start to work again, weeding out the Chicago's, Morton Grove, San Francisco's and the archaic Sullivan law. >:(
The reply's from the Mayor of DC and the police chief show how they still think they are in control. No Semi auto's, well if they can decide that, I guess they can say, only single shot handguns are allowed??? Maybe a caliber restriction, .22 CB caps, so it won't penetrate walls. I hope the new Plaintiffs can get the same Federal Judge who stood by Heller to start with. ???
I read Mayor Daley is puffing out his chest. Too bad, so sad. :'(
Now what about the Gun Control act of 1968, I could not find the exact statute, but it said that no lists could be compiled of gun owners. Is that not what DC is doing? " We just want to know where the guns are ", Right?
I can't remember all my conressional bills now, but I hope this strikes down the act, ( that was retro active and violates the EX POST FACTO clause ) of domestic violence, the one where if you had ever been in a fight and the police have a record, you can never own a gun again.
Everyone have a good night tonight, and lets get some more going tomorrow. ;)
I'm with all of you, I wish Chuck and Neal were here with us to see it. I'm sure they are nodding in content to each other, along with Bob Foss and Harlon Carter.
Post by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 08:04:29 PM
Post by: jaybet on June 26, 2008, 08:38:37 PM
Post by: Ron J on June 26, 2008, 09:08:11 PM
HOORAY, I'm celebrating, I did say a prayer at 8:50 am and as usual the big man came through. ;D
Everyone enjoy this moment, and tommorrow take a big breath, Exhale and start to work again, weeding out the Chicago's, Morton Grove, San Francisco's and the archaic Sullivan law. >:(
The reply's from the Mayor of DC and the police chief show how they still think they are in control. No Semi auto's, well if they can decide that, I guess they can say, only single shot handguns are allowed??? Maybe a caliber restriction, .22 CB caps, so it won't penetrate walls. I hope the new Plaintiffs can get the same Federal Judge who stood by Heller to start with. ???
I read Mayor Daley is puffing out his chest. Too bad, so sad. :'(
Now what about the Gun Control act of 1968, I could not find the exact statute, but it said that no lists could be compiled of gun owners. Is that not what DC is doing? " We just want to know where the guns are ", Right?
I can't remember all my conressional bills now, but I hope this strikes down the act, ( that was retro active and violates the EX POST FACTO clause ) of domestic violence, the one where if you had ever been in a fight and the police have a record, you can never own a gun again.
Everyone have a good night tonight, and lets get some more going tomorrow. ;)
I'm with all of you, I wish Chuck and Neal were here with us to see it. I'm sure they are nodding in content to each other, along with Bob Foss and Harlon Carter.
Right on and AMEN!
Post by: ericire12 on June 26, 2008, 09:19:20 PM
Good news for sure, but still just one battle in a war.
Yep.
Post by: twyacht on June 26, 2008, 09:51:27 PM
+1 With one more, Colonel Jeff Cooper. Somewhere, somehow, we are being given a nod, and from him that's enough to Fight the Good Fight" and keep going.
"George F. Will opines in Newsweek that Americans are a nation of cowards and shirkers, observing that we have surrendered our streets - as well as our dignity - to the goblins. He points out that, concerned with street crime, we choose to throw money at it rather than to fight. Money is not the answer. More cops cannot help. They can't be everywhere at once. More prisons cannot help. Modern prisons don't scare the bad guy. The only thing that can help is will - the will to fight back. If we have truly lost that, there is little hope for our civilization."
Jeff Cooper
Post by: gunman1911 on June 26, 2008, 10:44:34 PM
Post by: wisconsin on June 26, 2008, 11:01:38 PM
Post by: Solus on June 27, 2008, 09:34:59 AM
Mistake on Gura's part?
From what I've gathered about this, our folks did extensive planning on this doing what they thought would have the best chance to succeed. I believe they coordinated with other groups who were seeking to file cases that might detract from or jeapordize the Heller case.
From what I heard, their strategy went way beyond this single case, setting the stage for the future.
Any one with concrete information?
Post by: ismram on June 27, 2008, 10:23:05 AM
Judicial Monarchy!You hit the mark there! 5 to 4??? Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the decision but this should have been a slam dunk not a Oh My God! That was close!!!!
Only a 5 to 4 decision?
This wasn't about the constitution or case law. This was purely about political ideology. We have seen too many 5 to 4 decisions to think that the justices are concerned about anything but politics. There are 4 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges, and they are way too predictable about how they will side. Kennedy is the only middle of the road judge that is capable of being impartial. As he goes, so goes the decisions of the court.
This makes me sick. This was a clear cut constitutional decision to be made (forget about the crime statistics and whats best for the citizens). Only a 5 to 4 decision? We are truly living in a Judicial Monarchy!
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 27, 2008, 10:29:10 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32474
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 10:33:28 AM
Solus, check this article out from 2003. Co-ordinated is a very polite way to phrase it. I am not trying to bad mouth the NRA or Alan Gura, just providing a full context. The NRA basically got told to shove it, but you can read that in the link and draw your own conclusions....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32474
I don't really think they wanted the NRA to stay away as much as they just wanted to keep it simple.
From the Article:
Quote
allowing the Seegars plaintiffs to join this litigation would substantially and unnecessarily complicate what is presently a straightforward single-issue case.
"By adding a variety of extraneous claims to a case that is nearly ready for summary disposition, the Seegars plaintiffs would impede this court in resolving the narrow issue presented in the Parker litigation and substantially prejudice the Parker plaintiffs by delaying resolution of their claim,"
Even though it was a 5 to 4 decision it was essentially a slam dunk. Over complicating things might have resulted in Kennedy going the other way.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 10:33:48 AM
COMMENTARIES Washington D.C. v. Heller | ||
 | Host: Michael Bane Guest: Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF 20:35 minutes 06/27/08 | |
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 10:41:01 AM
This guy makes me want to puke:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=STwsbUwcO4U
Post by: Solus on June 27, 2008, 10:51:07 AM
Solus, check this article out from 2003. Co-ordinated is a very polite way to phrase it. I am not trying to bad mouth the NRA or Alan Gura, just providing a full context. The NRA basically got told to shove it, but you can read that in the link and draw your own conclusions....
Thanks, Rebel. I didn't remember the details and chose to use coordinate as a safe description.
In any case, your link shows that this action was well thought out by or team.
Maybe we could have won more, but I'd not think any of us will be "second guessing" this guys after the win.
Post by: blackwolfe on June 27, 2008, 10:53:21 AM
Post by: Solus on June 27, 2008, 10:56:56 AM
Olbermann (D) names Scalia "Worst Person in the World", calls him a clown, and bashes the Supreme Court for verdict in DC v Heller. Equates it all to only having the right to own muskets and flint locks....... Media bias? What media bias?
This guy makes me want to puke:
Obermann is somewhat of a hypocrite by using a broadcast media to exercise his 1st A rights rather than a hand operated press like those in use when the 1st A was written....
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 11:27:03 AM
Obermann is somewhat of a hypocrite by using a broadcast media to exercise his 1st A rights rather than a hand operated press like those in use when the 1st A was written....
Nice! ;D
Yeah, he of all people should fully appreciate the right to bear arms so that we may be not be controlled by a tyrannical government - or as he would call it, the Bush Administration.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 11:51:08 AM
Michael talks to David Hardy in another Down Range Radio Special Edition:
COMMENTARIES Washington D.C. v. Heller | ||
 | Host: Michael Bane Guest: David Hardy 25:34 minutes 06/27/08 | |
Post by: DDMac on June 27, 2008, 12:00:17 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/juxt001-1.jpg)
Mac.
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 12:08:41 PM
What are the odds on this juxtaposition?
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/juxt001-1.jpg)
Mac.
Our left wing rag (St Pete Times) didn't even mention it on their online site!
Post by: CZShooter on June 27, 2008, 12:21:48 PM
What are the odds on this juxtaposition?
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/juxt001-1.jpg)
Mac.
Did anyone else notice the irony of the other story on that paper...ATF seizes rifles from Blackwater?
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 12:45:49 PM
DR Radio Special Edition with guest Alan Gottlieb:
COMMENTARIES Washington D.C. v. Heller | ||
 | Host: Michael Bane Guest: Alan Gottlieb 18:04 minutes 06/27/08 | |
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 27, 2008, 12:55:25 PM
My understanding is the book stores across the country do not need to register as a business and get a license. This would be a violation of the 1st amendment. So the question comes to mind ... do gun stores need be licensed? Do FFLs need to be required or is that an undo restriction of the 2A rights?
Also when I hear these pols talking about still going ahead and restricting access to guns, I think of the southern politicians who put poll taxes etc in place to restrict blacks access to voting. Mayor Fenty is BLACK. Doesn't he see the comparison? Has he no sense of decency and morality? Gee I guess I know the answer to that one.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 01:56:37 PM
Last DR Radio Special edition of today with Dave Kopel:
COMMENTARIES Washington D.C. v. Heller | ||
 | Host: Michael Bane Guest: Dave Kopel 24:06 minutes 06/27/08 | |
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:12:59 PM
Looks that way KSAil, REMEMBER I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a high school graduate, GED ;D
Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
My read on this second quote would be that they're not saying you can protect your self from robbers but not rabid dogs, if you can legally carry for personal protection it's from ALL threats.
so far so good.
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:22:30 PM
To commemorate this historic occasion, I called the Supreme Court's Public Information Office and ordered what is called a "slip opinion." The slip opinion is the court opinion bound into a little paperback pamphlet. It is the first printing of the Court's opinion. I thought this would make a nice momento.
The cost is FREE. Just call 202-479-3211 ext 1 and ask for a printed copy of the slip opinion for Case 07-290 (DC v Heller). They will pop it in the mail to you. It might just become a collector's item some day. Of course, the preservation of our 2A rights was priceless.
John
ORDERED ;D
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:27:24 PM
I replayed the tape twice on exactly this point as I couldn't believe my ears when she said semi automatics will not be permitted in DC. So this means even in home defense its revolvers only with respect to handguns?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
If I understand the clips I've read so far, they can't ban guns in "Common use", last time I check my IWB holster Semi Autos were pretty darn common
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:28:48 PM
Haz, I just can't find him!!
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj211/DMACK_2008/provguns600.jpg)
RKBA!!
Mac.
Does the word "OVERKILL" sound vaguely familiar ;D
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:34:28 PM
DC will never issue a CCW permit, and regulate gun the gun laws to the point of madness. It will be worse than NJ, Mass. CA. They will not recognize any reciprocity from any state, and will make it dangerous to even drive across DC to Va with a gun in the car to go to the range. The future scenario is;
If you get pulled over in DC with a burned out tail light, and you disclose to the LEO that you have firearms in the trunk or the back. Your still going to to have 4 or 5 more officers show up, take em', take you, impound your car, and release you 48 hours later....
Than you begin to PAY your way out of this BS.
The politicians will make it more dangerous to take the guns out of your home than defend yourself in public, because there will never be a concealed carry law passed in DC.
The ruling is a good thing, but the Dems can "regulate" it to a point almost as bad as a ban.
"There you go with that negativity again Moriarty."
But if you know where I got the quote I'll let you slide, as you are probably close to the truth, if not dead on.
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:41:09 PM
Olbermann (D) names Scalia "Worst Person in the World", calls him a clown, and bashes the Supreme Court for verdict in DC v Heller. Equates it all to only having the right to own muskets and flint locks....... Media bias? What media bias?
This guy makes me want to puke:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=STwsbUwcO4U
You expected maybe that Olberman would sing the PRAISES of a NORMAL person ?
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 02:44:47 PM
Did anyone else notice the irony of the other story on that paper...ATF seizes rifles from Blackwater?
Yes
Post by: tt11758 on June 27, 2008, 03:08:55 PM
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 03:14:17 PM
"There you go with that negativity again Moriarty."
But if you know where I got the quote I'll let you slide, as you are probably close to the truth, if not dead on.
Kelley's Heroes - Donald Sutherland.
Post by: Solus on June 27, 2008, 03:17:09 PM
To commemorate this historic occasion, I called the Supreme Court's Public Information Office and ordered what is called a "slip opinion." The slip opinion is the court opinion bound into a little paperback pamphlet. It is the first printing of the Court's opinion. I thought this would make a nice momento.
The cost is FREE. Just call 202-479-3211 ext 1 and ask for a printed copy of the slip opinion for Case 07-290 (DC v Heller). They will pop it in the mail to you. It might just become a collector's item some day. Of course, the preservation of our 2A rights was priceless.
John
Ordered mine....
Not sure whether I frame it, carry it with me at all times or sleep with it .....
Post by: QDG48525 on June 27, 2008, 03:25:02 PM
Bad guys do not regester their guns, they don't care about you and I and they sure don't give a darn
about the laws! We must direct all of our attention to the bad guys, not the good guys! I know
I'm dreaming, but it makes me feel good to know that the bleeding hearts are the problem, along
with the bad guys!
Happy trails
QDG
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 03:26:06 PM
Only 'Revolvers and Derringers' Allowed in D.C.?
From Reason Magazine:
http://reason.com/blog/show/127237.html
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 03:28:04 PM
Ordered mine....
Not sure whether I frame it, carry it with me at all times or sleep with it .....
+1
Post by: saltydogbk on June 27, 2008, 03:30:00 PM
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 03:36:37 PM
The nice lady at the SCOTUS PIO tells me that she is sending LOTS of copies of that particular slip opinion out today. 8)
I just asked for a copy, and the lady didn't even ask what case. When I started to tell her, she just said the Heller case. She said lots of them going out. GOD BLESS AMERICA
They are handling it well I spent very little time on hold.
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 03:37:51 PM
I just asked for a copy, and the lady didn't even ask what case. When I started to tell her, she just said the Heller case. She said lots of them going out. GOD BLESS AMERICA
My guy was just the opposite. I said ...copy of Heller.. He asked my address, said he'd mail it today, then "what case number?". He seemed disappointed when I knew it.
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 03:38:35 PM
Kelley's Heroes - Donald Sutherland.
Loved the scene of the tank coming through the RR tunnel blaring "You are my Sunshine"
Should some one send a copy to TAB ? ::)
Post by: Solus on June 27, 2008, 03:40:42 PM
Maybe we can get them a copy?
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 04:14:22 PM
Loved the scene of the tank coming through the RR tunnel blaring "You are my Sunshine"
Should some one send a copy to TAB ? ::)
I liked the paint round into the Panzer (or was it a Tiger) and
"Woof Woof, That was my dog imiitation. Wanna hear my other dog imitation? Woof"
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 04:27:22 PM
I liked the paint round into the Panzer (or was it a Tiger) and
"Woof Woof, That was my dog imiitation. Wanna hear my other dog imitation? Woof"
Him, Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas facing down the Tiger tank, to the Clint Eastwood music, (Good,Bad, and Ugly ? ) Sutherland just flips the flap back on his holster ;D
Post by: buzzardtoes on June 27, 2008, 04:51:49 PM
First, was that the Court said that you could have a handgun IN YOUR HOME. What happened to "bear arms" from the Constitution. Did the Constitution state that we had to keep them at home? I don't think so...!
Second, The Court stated that the handgun could be used for self-defense and hunting. That was not the "original intent"!
Lastly, it is amazing that four of these unelected potentates ruled against it. Who are these people anyway?? And whose country are they trying to protect??
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 27, 2008, 05:11:34 PM
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 05:37:39 PM
Marshall I can't seem to locate the page that had all the Heller interviews and documentation on it. I see several MB interviews scattered across the Heller decision thread. Can you move a link to the home page and consolidate everything? or have I missed something....tks...
1776,
If you go to the home page and look at the panel titled District of Columbia v Heller Articles and Comentaries there is a link to all of them there.
Post by: vinceb on June 27, 2008, 05:41:13 PM
where has it been hiding...
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 27, 2008, 05:56:51 PM
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 07:13:34 PM
Anyone know Pelosi's or Sarah's address?
Maybe we can get them a copy?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 07:22:09 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062608/content/01125106.guest.html
Quote
I mean this is striking. This is simple. But I'll tell you one of the things that bothers me about this, not the ruling itself. But every June, the country gets out of bed (panting) and they start panting, and the country says, "What will the court tell us we can do today, and what will the court tell us we can't do?" The Supreme Court, by virtue of its own usurpation of powers, by virtue of liberal justices being on this court for years and years and years has taken over the role of arbiter of political decisions in this country, not judicial. I mean, yeah, they do some judicial cases, obviously. But it does frighten me that so many people slavishly look at the United States Supreme Court as the final word on issues that are political, not judicial and not legal. So we sit around like little serfs waiting for the crumbs to be thrown our way as we hang outside the big mansion hoping to be fed a little freedom or hoping not to have some taken away from us.
"Hey, they upheld the Second Amendment!" That should not be news. The fact that this was even up for grabs should be frightening as hell to all of us. The fact that four justices on the US Supreme Court tried to take it away from us, and yet we're going, "All right, all right."
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 07:38:36 PM
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 07:42:26 PM
The court should not be around to 'interpret' the constitution but to say if what the idiots in congress propose is covered by the ACTUAL constitution (abortion rights any one, hate crimes any one and on and on with this crap).
Unfortunately our politicians long ago decided to take the 'easy way out' and let the judiciary do the job the legislature should be doing.
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 07:46:08 PM
+1
The court should not be around to 'interpret' the constitution but to say if what the idiots in congress propose is covered by the ACTUAL constitution (abortion rights any one, hate crimes any one and on and on with this crap).
Unfortunately our politicians long ago decided to take the 'easy way out' and let the judiciary do the job the legislature should be doing.
Yep
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 27, 2008, 07:50:53 PM
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 07:54:33 PM
+1
The court should not be around to 'interpret' the constitution but to say if what the idiots in congress propose is covered by the ACTUAL constitution (abortion rights any one, hate crimes any one and on and on with this crap).
Unfortunately our politicians long ago decided to take the 'easy way out' and let the judiciary do the job the legislature should be doing.
That was my meaning but ,hey, I've been up for over 30 hours, and on here for about 18, but every time I say thats it some one posts something else I need to read or reply to, now if I go to bed to early I'll be all messed up monday when I have to be on second shift time.
Starting from Your statement it is up to US to re establish the proper functions of Government to the apropriate branches. While it is not spelled out it is insinuated by the first person plural perspective of the document.
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 08:01:41 PM
That was my meaning but ,hey, I've been up for over 30 hours, and on here for about 18, but every time I say thats it some one posts something else I need to read or reply to, now if I go to bed to early I'll be all messed up monday when I have to be on second shift time.
Starting from Your statement it is up to US to re establish the proper functions of Government to the apropriate branches. While it is not spelled out it is insinuated by the first person plural perspective of the document.
True, WE have been neglecting our duty as well.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 08:08:58 PM
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 27, 2008, 08:10:19 PM
True, WE have been neglecting our duty as well.
No miss understanding Ted is there (http://www.mazeguy.net/happy/applause.gif)
Post by: ericire12 on June 27, 2008, 08:15:04 PM
And here's Uncle Ted's view:
Very well put.
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 27, 2008, 08:22:40 PM
Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights
The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sncerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 08:22:58 PM
;D
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 08:28:14 PM
Looks like DC is going to ban semi-auto handguns. Here's the DC PD Memo found at TOPGLOCK;
Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights
The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sncerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
To me, those two items are much worse than the 'no semi' thing.
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 27, 2008, 08:29:06 PM
Post by: CDR on June 27, 2008, 08:35:57 PM
Anyone know Pelosi's or Sarah's address?
Maybe we can get them a copy?
Sure.....
The Kremlin
Sobornaya Ploshad
Moscow 103, Russia
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 27, 2008, 08:36:54 PM
Sure.....
The Kremlin
Sobornaya Ploshad
Moscow 103, Russia
Shack!
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 27, 2008, 08:39:29 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373122,00.html
Post by: Pathfinder on June 27, 2008, 08:46:46 PM
In yesterdays excitement of a 5 to 4 decision on Heller, we may forget that the Federal Judicary is a much larger organization than just SCOTUS. There are 678 Federal Judges in District Courts. Least we forget that these folks play a role in our litigation. It is the Judge Weinsteins of the system that cause us great angst....
And the 9th Circuit Court. I read yesterday that of all of the cases that the SCOTUS reviews, a large percentage, like 15% come from the 9th. and the 9th is overturned 85% of the time.
Post by: Hazcat on June 27, 2008, 08:53:38 PM
Post by: ronrdrcr on June 28, 2008, 01:22:03 AM
Quote
"would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Yes Mr. Stevens they did. You need to go back to High School history class. The power was in and with the people, not the elected, and they sought to keep it that way. DC regulated the use of weapons to the point of elimination of the 2nd Amendment right.
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 28, 2008, 02:30:28 AM
Is anyone else bothered by Stevens dissent? quote]
Only if another Liberal is appointed to the court.
Post by: DDMac on June 28, 2008, 06:11:13 AM
Mac.
Post by: ronrdrcr on June 28, 2008, 06:15:04 AM
Ron
Post by: DDMac on June 28, 2008, 06:36:04 AM
Some Mayors, Chiefs and even Governors will do their best to ignore what has happened and there will be monumental efforts made to circumvent the Heller Mandate. There will be law abiding citizens who fall victim to the entrenched systems of control. There will be a pendulum effect in the reasonable regulation area of law, swinging against the gun owner at first, which will bring on more, and possibly significant overcorrection by the courts. There is still a long road ahead, but a journey begun is half done.
Mac.
Post by: Pathfinder on June 28, 2008, 07:04:49 AM
Be part of history, help out locally.
Post by: Ocin on June 28, 2008, 07:16:38 AM
Congratulations on your victory from Holland
Ocin
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2008, 09:58:39 AM
Hey guys,
Congratulations on your victory from Holland
Ocin
Unfortunately, if there was ever a town to screw things up regarding firearms, it would be this one. Even with the SCOTUS ruling, as I stated before; There will never be legal CCW in DC, unless your Secret Service, FBI,..etc,... The "Gray areas", regarding transporting in DC to go to a range in VA, have yet to be spelled out. DC wont honor reciprocity, just like NJ, CA, MD, and you'll still be a potential victim on the street unless you carry illegally. Which is what the criminals do anyway.
A few blocks from the White House, is a section of Georgetown, if your white and its night, you stand a very good chance of not making it out of there. That won't change, :'(
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 28, 2008, 11:59:15 AM
Sure.....
The Kremlin
Sobornaya Ploshad
Moscow 103, Russia
Just goes to prove what i've said many times, No matter how abscure or what the subject, SOME ONE on here will provide an answer ;D
DRTV, repository of all human knowledge ;D
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 28, 2008, 12:02:45 PM
I'm not sure why Chief Lanier is concerned in the least. Did she miss the Mayor's post-decision speech where he declared that the VAST majority of DC residents supported the ban as it stood? Now that is how Democracy is supposed to work. The residents are now FREE to remain prey.. or not! May they still choose to disassemble their guns, lock them up and render them useless? Sure! Let's see if the Mayor has his thumb on the pulse of the community, or if he has it stuck elsewhere else.
Mac.
Apparently the mayor thinks the "Vast majority" of DC residents are criminals who do not want their victims shooting them.
Considering the Main "industry" in DC he may be right :(
Post by: rebarb14 on June 28, 2008, 12:22:17 PM
Reply to Colbert I. King's editorial 'Thugs Win the Case'
The trouble with those who would ban guns is simply that you can't ban guns. Criminals are defined as law-breakers. What law ever stopped law-breakers from breaking the law?
Laws only affect those who obey them. When we are denied the legal right to own a gun, we are left defenseless before those law defiers..This isn't rocket science, folks. 1+1=2 still.
Yet,some pretty intelligent people imagine that with billions of guns floating around the U.S. a law could prevent 'thugs' from owning guns. We've tried that. Did it work?
I lived in 'gun-free' New York in the 50's. I came to New York with a gun. I left New York with a gun. During the time I lived there my greatest fear was that the gun would be stolen and I could not report that. Legally the gun did not exist. It was clearly the most valuable item I owned as far as any thief was concerned.
I often wonder how many guns are in the 'thug world' because of 'gun control'.
I still own guns. I know how to use them. I will use them to defend my loved ones or myself. I respect the gun's power and finality. I know they aren't paint guns. All 'gun control' does is control those who own guns responsibly because they live responsibly.
As far as Canada is concerned. Canada is not the U.S. and nay be better off for it. Canada has not been at war somewhere for most of the last century. War does produce guns, you know. War also produces an attitude that says 'if we want comething changed somewhere, it's our right and priviledge to change it…with a gun.'
It's not easy to reconcile national belligerence with personal passivity. How about 'war control'? Woops!
BarbaraDahms
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 28, 2008, 12:55:57 PM
About the Supreme Court Decision
Reply to Colbert I. King's editorial 'Thugs Win the Case'
The trouble with those who would ban guns is simply that you can't ban guns. Criminals are defined as law-breakers. What law ever stopped law-breakers from breaking the law?
Laws only affect those who obey them. When we are denied the legal right to own a gun, we are left defenseless before those law defiers..This isn't rocket science, folks. 1+1=2 still.
Yet,some pretty intelligent people imagine that with billions of guns floating around the U.S. a law could prevent 'thugs' from owning guns. We've tried that. Did it work?
I lived in 'gun-free' New York in the 50's. I came to New York with a gun. I left New York with a gun. During the time I lived there my greatest fear was that the gun would be stolen and I could not report that. Legally the gun did not exist. It was clearly the most valuable item I owned as far as any thief was concerned.
"I often wonder how many guns are in the 'thug world' because of 'gun control'."
I still own guns. I know how to use them. I will use them to defend my loved ones or myself. I respect the gun's power and finality. I know they aren't paint guns. All 'gun control' does is control those who own guns responsibly because they live responsibly.
As far as Canada is concerned. Canada is not the U.S. and nay be better off for it. Canada has not been at war somewhere for most of the last century. War does produce guns, you know. War also produces an attitude that says 'if we want comething changed somewhere, it's our right and priviledge to change it…with a gun.'
It's not easy to reconcile national belligerence with personal passivity. How about 'war control'? Woops!
BarbaraDahms
Welcome to the Forum Barb, Considering how many Ladies are participating in shooting sports your views are severely under represented in this forum, Though Marshal'ette does her best. Now I will put down some thoughts I had about your post.
"The trouble with those who would ban guns is simply that you can't ban guns. Criminals are defined as law-breakers. What law ever stopped law-breakers from breaking the law?"The death penalty. The smart azz comment often made that it sure cuts down on second offenses, bears some consideration as statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are commited by "Career criminals" who are often guilty of dozens of crimes that they are never charged or punished for, as example, Sammy Gravano confessed to , I think it was 29 murders, these were not commited for gratification,like a serial killer, but simply as part of doing his form of "Business".
"Laws only affect those who obey them. When we are denied the legal right to own a gun, we are left defenseless before those law defiers..This isn't rocket science, folks. 1+1=2 still.
Yet,some pretty intelligent people imagine that with billions of guns floating around the U.S. a law could prevent 'thugs' from owning guns. We've tried that. Did it work?
I lived in 'gun-free' New York in the 50's. I came to New York with a gun. I left New York with a gun. During the time I lived there my greatest fear was that the gun would be stolen and I could not report that. Legally the gun did not exist. It was clearly the most valuable item I owned as far as any thief was concerned." You are preaching to the Chior, but you said it very well ;D
I often wonder how many guns are in the 'thug world' because of 'gun control'.
That is an interesting question, Similar to the Man in the Chicago area, Confronted a burglar and the burglar called the Cops on HIM, as pistols were illegal in that area. This poor guy is going to Jail while the burgalur walks for being "a good citizen" who reported a terrible "Gun Crime".
Post by: DDMac on June 28, 2008, 01:23:31 PM
Mac
Post by: Solus on June 28, 2008, 01:40:02 PM
Sure.....
The Kremlin
Sobornaya Ploshad
Moscow 103, Russia
LOL =))))....is Ted Kennedy at the same address??? He might like some stimulating readiing while he recovers -))))
Post by: Solus on June 28, 2008, 02:02:59 PM
Because the bringers of the case deliberately filed a very narrow case to give the maximum chance of success, we got a narrow oppinion.
It speaks to keeping a firearm in the home for defense because that is all the case was fighting for. It allowed registration and licensing because the case did not object to them.
But I believe this ruling is so powerful. It not only speaks to Gun Freedom, but to the individuals right and responsibility to protect themselves It has opened the way for every case about self defense. Every Castle Doctrine bill has a much greater chance for success.
It will be a small task to win a case that extends self defense into your back yard compared to winning this one.
All of a sudden the thrust of the gun control issue has gone from laws after law that chips away at our rights to case after case that will win them back, bit by bit.
I have woken up twice since the decision and still find I am not dreaming. I posted before, I do believe this will be the most memorable and meaningful 4th of July, Independence Day of my life.
Added to this Crown Jewel is that Ohio passed their Castle Doctrine law this month and a needed reform of their CCW law as well.
The only way things could be better is if I would win the lottery, be able to stop working for a living so I could spend all the time I need to keep up with all the posts you folks make here....
Thanks for a great forum.
Post by: tombogan03884 on June 28, 2008, 02:03:09 PM
Cynic that I am, I maintain that the gun/crime issue is just a smokescreen. Government regulation of firearms is fundamentally about establishing a condition among the populace where the word from the Chief, Mayor, Governor or Congress may be unacceptable or disagreeable, but not debatable. The allusion to fighting gun crime is supposed to be the candy coating to disguise the taste of the poison pill. It is ALWAYS about the power, from both sides of the issue. The power to inflict and the power to resist. It is balance that brings social stability.
Mac
+1
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 28, 2008, 02:27:43 PM
More from this week's Heller coverage:
Post by: CDR on June 28, 2008, 03:56:34 PM
LOL =))))....is Ted Kennedy at the same address??? He might like some stimulating readiing while he recovers -))))
Negative................Kennedy is presently availing himself of the finest health care system in the world (at least for now) but will soon return to join Comrades Pelosi and Brady.
Post by: drjihmd on June 28, 2008, 08:41:14 PM
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 28, 2008, 09:12:08 PM
I realize everyone is not going to be reading the 64 page opinion (no less the full 157 pages of the decision) but please try if you can. It is an amazing civics lesson! You will be proud of this decison, the court and the US. Most of all the framers of the constitution.
Post by: drjihmd on June 29, 2008, 11:31:56 PM
Post by: blackwolfe on June 30, 2008, 02:08:03 AM
From what I read there D.C. bans all self loading rifles and handguns. Kopel says that it is almost certain that it is unconstitutional and would not pass the Heller test. Further if I read it correctly any self loading firearm that has had a magazine ever made for it that can hold more than 12 rounds is a machine gun as defined by the D.C. ordinance.
I recommend reading those post.
We have won one battle, but the war for gun rights is far from over. We must all carry the fight to November and vote pro gun rights. We are just one vote away on the SCOTUS from "sensible gun laws" gun laws like D.C.'s semi auto "machine gun" ban becoming the permanant law of the land.
Post by: Solus on June 30, 2008, 08:20:02 AM
Does anyone remember a movie about a group of folks moving a giant cannon through the countryside to bring it to bear against a large fort or castle? I believe it may have been in Spain. The folks with the cannon were the good guys, the fort the oppressors.
I remember 3 big things about the movie....that big cannon and Sophia Loren.
Anyway, my vision is to have the Cannon labeled Heller Decision and the Fort labeled Anti-Gun Establishment. The folks who are moving the Cannon into position are labeled The People.
Have figures in the ramparts of the Fort labeled Biased Media, Anti-Gun Politicians, Anti-gun Laws, and what ever can be thought of.
Note: I found the movie The Pride and the Passion. It was about the invasion of Spain by Napoleon. The Cannon was a weapon lost by the French and recovered by the Spanish defenders and used against the invaders. Fits even better.
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 30, 2008, 08:29:33 AM
I wish that I were an artist....just got a vision for a political cartoon.
Does anyone remember a movie about a group of folks moving a giant cannon through the countryside to bring it to bear against a large fort or castle? I believe it may have been in Spain. The folks with the cannon were the good guys, the fort the oppressors.
I remember 3 big things about the movie....that big cannon and Sophia Loren.
Anyway, my vision is to have the Cannon labeled Heller Decision and the Fort labeled Anti-Gun Establishment. The folks who are moving the Cannon into position are labeled The People.
Have figures in the ramparts of the Fort labeled Biased Media, Anti-Gun Politicians, Anti-gun Laws, and what ever can be thought of.
Note: I found the movie The Pride and the Passion. It was about the invasion of Spain by Napoleon. The Cannon was a weapon lost by the French and recovered by the Spanish defenders and used against the invaders. Fits even better.
Great comparison. I think it would be a great flick to remake and show the Brady folks...Angelina Jolie could sub for Sophia Loren. ;D
Post by: Ron J on June 30, 2008, 08:35:15 AM
With that being said, you think Smith & Wesson will take that internal lock off their guns?!?
Lot of battles to be fought. Keep writing your representatives! Never quit. Never surrender. Never.
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 30, 2008, 10:38:52 AM
Gun control still in force, chief says
Semiautomatics banned
The Supreme Court decision overturning the District's handgun ban won't trigger an open season for guns, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Friday, because D.C. law still bans all semiautomatic weapons — such as the common 9 mm pistols used by police and the military.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/gun-control-still-in-force-chief-says/
Post by: Hazcat on June 30, 2008, 10:57:05 AM
Post by: 1776 Rebel on June 30, 2008, 11:03:48 AM
trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District
Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate
licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the
carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land
without a license.” App. 59a."
Pg 61 of decision.
From the above I suspect it applies to all real property...
Post by: Hazcat on June 30, 2008, 11:08:47 AM
THANKS! I had not seen that before. If'n I lived in DC I'd drive 'em crazy. Get me the biggest hand cannon I could and strap it on. Wear it while sweeping the steps, watering the posies, etc! (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/teufel/devil-smiley-019.gif)
Post by: CurrieS103 on June 30, 2008, 11:23:25 AM
Post by: Hazcat on June 30, 2008, 11:43:40 AM
This ought do the job... ;D
Yep, that'd fill the bill nicely.
Post by: Ron J on June 30, 2008, 12:03:08 PM
Gun control still in force, chief says
Semiautomatics banned
The Supreme Court decision overturning the District's handgun ban won't trigger an open season for guns, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Friday, because D.C. law still bans all semiautomatic weapons — such as the common 9 mm pistols used by police and the military.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/28/gun-control-still-in-force-chief-says/
They haven't seen Jerry Miculek shoot!
Post by: Hazcat on June 30, 2008, 12:12:18 PM
They haven't seen Jerry Miculek shoot!
;D
Post by: 1776 Rebel on July 01, 2008, 12:38:10 PM
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 01, 2008, 12:45:42 PM
Maybe I am just naive. But I would have expected the big three weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News) to have either run a cover story or some such large article on the Heller decision for Monday's edition. Nope. Not a one. If you look on their websites you will see mediocre summaries of the Supreme court activity for the last week or so but nothing substantial on Heller. I will wait until next week but I don't have my hopes up. The MSM just wants to bury this is my guess. The sooner it goes down the memory hole the better.
Maybe for them, but WE will remember and as Moa said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." If you look through history, EVERY major coup, revolution or "regime change" has been decided by guns, even so called "peacefull " revolutions are decided by the Gonernment Forces decision to fire on their countrymen or not. That being said, with the support of SCOTUS WE are the ones with the guns, WE THE PEOPLE, and niether we nor the socialists are likely to forget that.
Post by: DDMac on July 18, 2008, 06:01:36 AM
ATF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller:
ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.
The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws. END END.
Does anyone agree with Sullivan's statement that machineguns (I also assume all NFA) are NOT protected by the 2ND ? Can't locate where that position is "recognized" in the ruling. Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.
Post by: Ocin on July 18, 2008, 06:44:22 AM
Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.
I would say from a perspective of self defense yes. I don't know how it is in the USA but here in Holland all military weaponry is covered by a special section of the gun laws. I think the problem starts there where weapons which are appropriate for self defense are judged by the effect they have, for example hollow point bullets : "they make such terrible wounds" or "this type of weapon is often used in a mass shooting" or "this is so easily concealable"
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 18, 2008, 10:36:10 AM
Saw this yesterday:
ATF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller:
ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.
The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws. END END.
Does anyone agree with Sullivan's statement that machineguns (I also assume all NFA) are NOT protected by the 2ND ? Can't locate where that position is "recognized" in the ruling. Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.
Mac, the statement about machine guns seems to ignore the Miller decision.
Does our military use "dangerous and unusual weapons" ? Well, would an anti tank missile fit that description ? ;D
Post by: DDMac on July 18, 2008, 02:54:08 PM
Since 1933 and again during the 1968 amnesty, hundreds of thousands of people have paid the US Government to register and possess machineguns and similar weapons of war and defense. VERY few problems have occurred with those heavily regulated weapons, other than stolen ones (which triggers ATF investigations).
That is my basis for questioning Director Sullivan's position statement that machineguns are not protected under the 2ND Amendment.
Here, military weapons, owned by and under the control of the government, are exempt from civilian gun laws.
Mac.
Post by: Ocin on July 18, 2008, 04:49:59 PM
Ocin, here is the context I find conflicting. In the US, if there was a call up to form a militia, let's say to supplement the regular military forces (Army, Navy, Air Force..) during war or attack on our soil, the Court in the Heller decision indicated that the potential members of that militia need be pre-equipped in similar fashion as are the regulars they would support. The ability of this country to field a viable fighting force is clearly set forth in the first words of the Second Amendment. Machineguns have been a military staple for 100 years. How then can such firearms not be covered under the protections of the 2nd Amendment? They are already the most heavily regulated forms of weaponry in civilian hands under the National Firearms Act of 1933 (or 1932).
Since 1933 and again during the 1968 amnesty, hundreds of thousands of people have paid the US Government to register and possess machineguns and similar weapons of war and defense. VERY few problems have occurred with those heavily regulated weapons, other than stolen ones (which triggers ATF investigations).
That is my basis for questioning Director Sullivan's position statement that machineguns are not protected under the 2ND Amendment.
Here, military weapons, owned by and under the control of the government, are exempt from civilian gun laws.
Mac.
Well DDMack, this is what I think as a non US citizen:
One could read your 2nd amendment in 2 ways, once as if the (well regulated) militia are authorised to bear arms and second that the people can form a (well regulated) militia and have the right to keep and bear arms, and then not just for self defense but also for fun, antagonising others, showing off or what other good, bad or no reason at all. The only real way to clarify this is actually asking those who drafted this amendment. Problem: they are long dead, so that is not going to work.
As for the equipment required for these militia: if they should be effective, then yes, they should be equipped similarly like or at least complementary to the standing armed forces, which would include a variety in weapons which would be unsuited for self defense.
As for the RKBA for self defense, which, IMHO is at the heart of the controversy, one would first have to establish whether individual civilians have a right to RKBA or not. It may have been in earlier times that this right was well established, but leave it to lawyers and politicians to cloud these issues in such a way that no one really knows what any law, constitution or amendment says.
I think that the best way out of this stalemate would be to rewrite that 2nd amendment in such a way that it would be clear as to how it is meant. I think that the best way for that would be to draft up 2 amendments, one stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia, and another stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia AND the right to keep and bear arms for this and that purposes. Subsequently these two drafts would then have to be put up for popular vote. This would not only deal with the constitutional question as to whether you have a right to own and carry a gun for self protection, but also put an end to the ever lasting debate as to what the American people really want: to own and carry guns or get rid of them.
I realise that this would not stop all discussions and controversy. You would still have to clarify and define what suitable weapons for self defense are, whether they include weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, or short barreled rifles or shotguns or not. It would however put an end to the debate about what the amendments say, and that would be a huge step forward.
As I said, this is my opinion, as a non US citizen. Feel free to disagree.
Ocin
Post by: Ron J on July 20, 2008, 01:28:52 PM
Being a product of the California educational system, I am barely literate much less any sort of US Constitution scholar so hopefully if I butcher this someone can chime in.
On the surface, rewriting the Constitution to have “definitive” language makes some sense. However, when one drills down into all that was written they find that there already is definitive language as to the intent the founding fathers had. What we find is that people (anti-gun) will tend to want to twist the original meaning to fit their agendas. This is where the US Supreme Court came in with the Heller decision … which should have been rendered back in 1939 in US vs. Miller.
To this, at this point in time we have the right to keep and bear arms. No local government can usurp the US Constitution and legislate that right away. You are right when you say that there will be some argument as to what the capacity of a weapon should be or possibly what caliber should be allowed. As well, there will be some future legislature that will attempt to ban or tax the living snot out of ammunition. Much more to the RKBA battle ahead.
The debate of the American people to own guns or get rid of them may go on forever. Like abortion, it’s a very emotional issue. What a lot of people around the world seem to forget is that our culture here in America is a gun culture. Our foundation was established with the musket ball and with the blood of patriots. Taking guns away from responsible gun owners is not going to solve any of society’s problems. In fact, it has been repeatedly proven that such action will only complicate and accelerate such societal ills.
Besides, the world is a much better if not more polite place with armed Americans.
Post by: DDMac on July 20, 2008, 02:59:16 PM
Ocin, the Founding Fathers did not necessarily trust the future evolution of American government to not fall back into an old form of monarchy. That's where we came from, and it was at least a known entity that could theoretically be well run.
As a final measure of insurance that their valiant efforts to win freedom and establish a new concept in government would not be brought to ruin by an emerging tyrant, they gave their descendants the ability, like a perpetuity, to throw off any government that usurps the freedoms and liberties they acknowledged and enumerated. They gave us the legal right to be prepared to successfully rebel against the government. No ruler, no Committee, no political party can stray far from the principles of the US Constitution without the consent of the governed, without expectation of terrible consequences. The Second Amendment is the final check and balance in American government. With that purpose in mind, what restrictions would the signers of the Constitution have recommended? Probably none, beyond common reason..
Self defense is a by-product.
That's my take on it anyway.
Mac.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 20, 2008, 04:57:44 PM
Post by: Ron J on July 20, 2008, 06:01:34 PM
The 2nd Amendment and the RKBA is the document that separates slaves from free men and women.
Post by: twyacht on July 20, 2008, 09:19:13 PM
Mike Huckabee
Is it perfect? Not at all, is it better than other countries? IMHO, yes. Ask those in England where crimes involving knives is up exponentially, and they can't arm themselves, unless they have a bat, or in their case a shillelagh.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 20, 2008, 10:08:07 PM
"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment."
Mike Huckabee
Is it perfect? Not at all, is it better than other countries? IMHO, yes. Ask those in England where crimes involving knives is up exponentially, and they can't arm themselves, unless they have a bat, or in their case a shillelagh.
In England Civilians are NOT allowed to defend themselves with anything. Their was a guy who clubbed a burglar with a golf club, Home owner went to jail. Recently a 68 yr old mans house was being pelted with stones by a group of teenagers so he called the police, 2 hours later the police had still not arrived so he chased the teens away with a piece of wood. That's when the police showed up and arrested him for brandishing a "dangerous item" >:(
Post by: Ron J on July 20, 2008, 10:49:42 PM
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 21, 2008, 12:28:59 AM
In England Civilians are NOT allowed to defend themselves with anything. Their was a guy who clubbed a burglar with a golf club, Home owner went to jail. Recently a 68 yr old mans house was being pelted with stones by a group of teenagers so he called the police, 2 hours later the police had still not arrived so he chased the teens away with a piece of wood. That's when the police showed up and arrested him for brandishing a "dangerous item" >:(
Just heard on the news that as of Friday English subjects have been granted the privilege of defending themselves with physical force.
Post by: Solus on July 21, 2008, 12:17:13 PM
Just heard on the news that as of Friday English subjects have been granted the privilege of defending themselves with physical force.
That is an interesting turn of events...next thing you know, the ban being sought on "Air Weapons" will fail. I guess some of the sheep got fed up enough to join the sheep dogs.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 21, 2008, 08:46:39 PM
Damn glad I don't live in England. I could be arrested EVERY morning for brandishing a dangerous piece of wood. ;)
Oh My God! I can't believe you said that and I can't believe I'm commenting on it. ::)
Post by: jaybet on July 22, 2008, 07:43:45 AM
Oh My God! I can't believe you said that and I can't believe I'm commenting on it. ::)We can believe it! You wouldn't let a duck like that go by. :D
Post by: Ron J on July 22, 2008, 01:59:17 PM
Post by: 1776 Rebel on August 25, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
Just heard on the news that as of Friday English subjects have been granted the privilege of defending themselves with physical force.
Tom if you find a reference for this change in English law can you pls post it. tks...
Post by: fullautovalmet76 on August 25, 2008, 08:45:45 PM
"Statement of Brian Roehrkasse, Director of Public Affairs, on Reaction to the Supreme Court's Decision in District of Columbia V. Heller
"The Department is pleased with the Court’s ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The Court’s ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment. The Department is also pleased that the Court recognized that, like other constitutional rights, that individual right is ‘not unlimited.’ Thus, the Court appropriately made clear that nothing in today’s ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of ‘longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’ In addition, the Court appropriately recognized that the ‘carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,’ such as machine guns, is not protected by the Amendment. The Justice Department is studying the decision but, as was made clear in its 2001 guidance recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the Department ‘will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws.’"
As an owner of a few NFA firearms and related items, I find this release very alarming. What I sense is the DOJ may be examining ways to outlaw the possession and sale of machineguns that were made before 5/19/86. I understand this issue came up during the 30's and the Court ruled then that it was unconstitutional to ban them, so I am not sure how they think they can pull this off now.
I will say that if they succeed in the banning and the confiscation of these guns, they will have ample precedent to take the next class of firearms- semiautomatic firearms. It will start with banning "assault" weapons and then it will progress to magazine capacities and calibers.
We all need to be vigilant in defense of our freedom......
Post by: CDR on April 10, 2009, 12:31:08 PM
Thanks.
Post by: 1776 Rebel on April 10, 2009, 06:50:53 PM
http://www.hellerfoundation.org/
Alan Gura (the attorney for Dick Heller that took it to the SCOTUS) has moved on from what I can see to the Chicago gun case and his website is here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
Finally Stephen Halbrook is representing Heller now (I believe on his various new lawsuits) and his website it here:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/
Post by: CDR on April 10, 2009, 07:39:35 PM
CDR, as you can imagine there are a number of spin off lawsuits from the Heller case. If you want to keep up with Dick Heller make sure you have your running shoes on ! He ain't letting 'em off the hook, and has several more lawsuits in the courts againist DC. Here is his website...
http://www.hellerfoundation.org/
Alan Gura (the attorney for Dick Heller that took it to the SCOTUS) has moved on from what I can see to the Chicago gun case and his website is here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
Finally Stephen Halbrook is representing Heller now (I believe on his various new lawsuits) and his website it here:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/
Thanks Rebel for the great links....very informative.
Perusing through the latest Dick Heller suit against DC only confirms my belief that the DC Chief of Police needs to be removed. The numerous denied DC gun applicants since the SCOTUS decision have been so denied due to the fact that DC is defining ALL semi automatic guns, pistols included, as "assault weapons" with the exception of the pistols used by the USA Olympic Team.... ::) Even more remarkably, the definition of "assault weapon" is defined as any weapon this abortion of a public servant feels presents a public safety risk. She decides what an assault weapon is....period...no one else. You can't make this up.
I'm at a loss for words at the violations and assault being perpetrated on our Constitution.