Post by: gunsmith on June 16, 2008, 05:15:35 AM
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Post by: gunsmith on June 16, 2008, 05:25:15 AM
Quote
10:20
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Post by: Scout26 on June 16, 2008, 05:57:14 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on June 16, 2008, 09:52:28 AM
Post by: seeker_two on June 16, 2008, 10:14:59 AM
DANG!
Quote
10:20
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Juneteenth would be an excellent day to get an "individual rights" ruling and start disassembling some gun laws (those who know who gun control targeted first will get the point....
)
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 12:44:24 AM
DANG!
Quote
10:20
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Ben Winograd - The Court will next release opinions at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 19.
Juneteenth would be an excellent day to get an "individual rights" ruling and start disassembling some gun laws (those who know who gun control targeted first will get the point....
)Damn right.
Post by: LadySmith on June 19, 2008, 12:50:15 AM
Juneteenth would be an excellent day to get an "individual rights" ruling and start disassembling some gun laws (those who know who gun control targeted first will get the point.... )
Point gotten and what MicroBalrog said. )
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 12:59:58 AM
Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears! So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. The price was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads. So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.
But Seeker Two is right as well.
Post by: RocketMan on June 19, 2008, 05:18:33 AM
Post by: Lennyjoe on June 19, 2008, 10:06:46 AM
Post by: Scout26 on June 19, 2008, 10:33:47 AM
Post by: RocketMan on June 19, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Post by: Nick1911 on June 20, 2008, 05:45:56 AM
Could be next year.
Oh No's! My faith in timely supreme court rulings!
Post by: RevDisk on June 22, 2008, 08:32:50 PM
Could be Monday. Could be next Thursday. Could be next year.
A decision is expected by the end of June. But yea, SCOTUS can basically issue it whenever they please.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 23, 2008, 05:07:59 AM
Post by: lupinus on June 23, 2008, 09:19:17 AM
Post by: geronimotwo on June 23, 2008, 10:29:41 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on June 25, 2008, 05:23:10 AM
And as soon as I post this they start talking about incredibly stupid stuff.
It was up there a minute ago, I swear!
Post by: Nick1911 on June 25, 2008, 05:27:47 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 25, 2008, 05:30:35 AM
Quote
We can now predict that in addition to Justice Scalia likely writing Heller
From SCOTUSblog.
Post by: Lennyjoe on June 25, 2008, 05:32:07 AM
Post by: vaskidmark on June 25, 2008, 05:32:55 AM
Quote
We can now predict that in addition to Justice Scalia likely writing Heller
From SCOTUSblog.
TOMORROW
10:26 Tom Goldstein -
We can now predict that in addition to Justice Scalia likely writing Heller, Justice Alito is likely writing Davis v. FEC.
10:27 Ben Winograd - The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.
10:28 Ben Winograd -
This concludes our coverage of todays public session. Please join us once again tomorrow for the final day of the Supreme Court term.
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 05:38:01 AM
What's the view on that?
Good or bad?
Post by: Mabs2 on June 25, 2008, 05:38:14 AM
Alls I know is the anchor said they were monitoring it and if they got a ruling they'd pass it on. Maybe they jumpe dthe gun or maybe they're optimistic or something.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 25, 2008, 05:38:24 AM
Didn't see anything on the blog today either
Supposedly, all opinions on remaining open issues will be issued tomorrow at 10am.
Post by: Balog on June 25, 2008, 05:46:39 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 25, 2008, 05:47:35 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 05:49:44 AM
No, it simply means that he's the judge who is writing the majority opinion of the court. There's always a judge who writes a majority opinion. Other judges who were in the majority can also write opinions. Then there's usually a judge who writes a minority opinion, basically a response as to why those who voted against the majority did so. That has no true weight of law, as I understand it.
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 05:52:51 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2008, 05:55:08 AM
Mike, for what it's worth, here's a link to what Michael O'Shea, who is a law prof at the Oklahoma City University, has to say about it
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 05:58:58 AM
Damn...
I know very little about Dianah Ross and the Supremes. I knew Scalia was moderately gun friendly, but not to that level. If he's writing the majority that would likely be very good news.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 06:00:56 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2008, 06:07:50 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 25, 2008, 06:10:30 AM
The real question is, will we be able to use later litigation to expand gun rights from what exists today. Maybe throw out 822 (o) in a later suit.
I'll drink to the idea.
Post by: seeker_two on June 25, 2008, 07:00:36 AM
....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......
...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....
....stay tuned....
Post by: Mabs2 on June 25, 2008, 07:04:41 AM
I can't remember the last time I've been so nervous about a SCOTUS ruling.....
....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......
...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....
....stay tuned....
I can't remember ever paying attention to SCOTUS doing anything at all.....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......
...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....
....stay tuned....
Earlier I got butterflies in my stomach when the anchor on Fox mentioned a ruling soon.
Post by: longeyes on June 25, 2008, 07:28:04 AM
Post by: lacoochee on June 25, 2008, 07:36:22 AM
Hopefully they remember this when they make their decision on whether they rip up the agreement we all use to deal with each other, the constitution.
There is a reset button.
Post by: Bigjake on June 25, 2008, 08:20:42 AM
I can't remember the last time I've been so nervous about a SCOTUS ruling.....
....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......
...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....
....stay tuned....
....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......
...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....
....stay tuned....
Only on paper, according to them, my friend.
Post by: charby on June 25, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 09:17:32 AM
And I'm not exaggerating.
Remember what he did with his vote on government emminent domaine?
Post by: Scout26 on June 25, 2008, 09:39:41 AM
Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 09:51:43 AM
No way in hell does she vote on the side of the individual when it comes to firearms.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 25, 2008, 09:56:51 AM
Post by: Monty on June 25, 2008, 10:24:42 AM
Well I was wrong on the date. But I'll give it a go on the count either 8-1 (Stevens) or 7-2 (Stevens and Souter)
Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.
Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.
Read somewhere Scalia is the only justice without a majority decision so far this session so I think that is a very positive sign it will go our way, only real question I think is how far.
Monty
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 10:25:24 AM
The only commerce going on in most schools is drug dealing, for Christ's sake!
Post by: K Frame on June 25, 2008, 10:29:30 AM
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Post by: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
Uh oh...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Hopefully not Ginsburg.
"It's not an individual right because we have police now, and they can protect you..."
Post by: charby on June 25, 2008, 10:36:28 AM
Uh oh...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Hopefully not Ginsburg.
"It's not an individual right because we have police now, and they can protect you..."
but an earlier SCOTUS opinion that we don't have the rights of police protection
Post by: Scout26 on June 25, 2008, 12:38:31 PM
You're forgetting the Ruth Baeder-Ginsberg factor.
No way in hell does she vote on the side of the individual when it comes to firearms.
No way in hell does she vote on the side of the individual when it comes to firearms.
Ginsburg has quoted/used the 2A in other rulings to support "Right of the People" clause. It think she might vote with us. If it's 6-3 then it's Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg.
Post by: cslinger on June 25, 2008, 12:40:14 PM
I know silly me half of us have to hate the other half right. Besides what would the media do? Sigh.
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 12:41:05 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 25, 2008, 12:42:51 PM
Quote
Wouldn't it be great if Heller put to bed the wedge issue of guns..........
It would, but it won't. Probability is it will be an extremely narrow judgement specific to DC. As such, the rest of us are still left with our behinds flapping in the proverbial breeze.
Brad
Post by: Balog on June 25, 2008, 12:43:56 PM
2. What do you think of as "wedge issues" we should just dismiss?
3. What do you think are "real issues" that actually matter?
Post by: Marvin Dao on June 25, 2008, 02:09:47 PM
Well I was wrong on the date. But I'll give it a go on the count either 8-1 (Stevens) or 7-2 (Stevens and Souter)
Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.
Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.
I'm thinking a 4-2-1-2 on the decisions.
Scalia goes in strong for Heller, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas sign on. He makes a broad ruling about the RKBA.
Kennedy goes in weak for Heller, Ginsberg signs on. They recognize the RKBA, strike down DC's laws, but allow DC space to rewrite the law and try again. Theirs will be the binding decision.
Breyer goes against Heller. He recognizes the RKBA, but says that DC's laws don't violate it.
Stevens and Souter go in strong against Heller. They don't recognize the RKBA at all.
Quote from: Mike Irwin
Uh oh...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...
I hope that doesn't mean anything...
It doesn't. The guess that Scalia will issue the majority opinion is because he hasn't issued a majority opinion from the March sitting and Heller is the only case left from the March sitting. The Scalia majority ruling presented today was from a different sitting.
Post by: Leatherneck on June 25, 2008, 02:46:44 PM
The underlying issue is CONTROL.
Over every aspect of your life that the power-hungry wimps want the government to wield the power of law upon you and me and us.
Standing Wolf will be along shortly to back me up, i trust.
TC
Post by: cslinger on June 25, 2008, 03:49:38 PM
I think we have lost sight of trying to solve or mitigate our problems and instead look for easy answers or pander to a particular group for votes.
I know Heller will not be an end all be all, and frankly I don't think even a win will be more then symbolic early on but I do hope that it starts to take the gun issue off the table.
Post by: El Tejon on June 25, 2008, 03:52:13 PM
Quote
I know Heller will not be an end all be all, and frankly I don't think even a win will be more then symbolic early on but I do hope that it starts to take the gun issue off the table.
There will be a long struggle ahead of us as we undergo successive waves of litigation on incorporation, licensing, safety boards, cosmetic gun bans, etc.
The "gun issue" is a freedom issue. How a politician stands on guns is how he wants to stand on you.
Post by: grampster on June 25, 2008, 04:54:59 PM
Reasoning: I believe they believe the constitution to be a living document that must be bent to whatever cultural demand is made of it rather than causing the culture to conform to the document. In so doing, they ignore the provision in the document to modify it. That's why judicial activism is not only wrong, but treason.
We actually need a constitutional amendment to limit the appointment of all federal judges to a 10 year term. They can still be appointed as they are now, but out in 10 years.
5-4. We lose. You heard it here first.
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 25, 2008, 06:00:39 PM
Quote
The underlying issue is not gun control.
The underlying issue is CONTROL.
Over every aspect of your life that the power-hungry wimps want the government to wield the power of law upon you and me and us.
Standing Wolf will be along shortly to back me up, i trust.
The underlying issue is CONTROL.
Over every aspect of your life that the power-hungry wimps want the government to wield the power of law upon you and me and us.
Standing Wolf will be along shortly to back me up, i trust.
More or less. Control is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Guns are, indeed, powerful in human hands, so they're the last thing leftists want to see permitted to commoners.
The "power-hungry wimps" are moral and intellectual wimps; they also, unfortunately, already have a great deal of power, and haven't been at all shy of using it to further their ends.
Leftism is the ideology that furthers the all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent, all-owning state. For all practical purposes, the state leftists seek demands nothing short of worship: the peasants' and workers' complete subjugation, loyalty, dependence, trust, et cetra.
I'm afraid the supremacy of the state may be the norm throughout history, not the exception.
The principal questions to be asked are, as always:
1. Who benefits? As always, the self-appointed elite.
2. Who pays? As always, the vast majority.
Freedom isn't a "wedge issue." It's the fundamental issue. I'm sorry to tell you I think we've abandoned most of the freedom the United States started with. It's gone. Government is never going to give it back, and frankly, I'd be extremely surprised if we, the people, who are busy watching cable TV and fretting about the price of gasoline, have what it takes even to want it back, still less take it back. We, the people, weren't worthy of it.
Post by: grampster on June 25, 2008, 07:06:54 PM
Our job is not to overthrow the existing political order with, say, a third party or other sillyness. Nice idea and constitutionally correct. But given the willingness of most Americans to be concerned only with short term issues, the status quo will not only rule the day, but increase. Third parties and vocal minorities are like gnats in the backyard. Unavoidable but insignificant.
So what shall we who crave freedom do? Well, I say we do what we have always done quietly, work around the status quo. Do as we have always done; avoid the system by not poking it in the eye. Speak softly to those who have the ability to be spoken to. Maybe 50 or 75 years from now, sanity will be the order of the day and there will be much grinning and range time.
Freedom abounds. It's just found in the seams.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 25, 2008, 08:12:04 PM
Actually, I'm a bit worried that the 5 activists on the court will rule against.
Reasoning: I believe they believe the constitution to be a living document that must be bent to whatever cultural demand is made of it rather than causing the culture to conform to the document. In so doing, they ignore the provision in the document to modify it. That's why judicial activism is not only wrong, but treason.
We actually need a constitutional amendment to limit the appointment of all federal judges to a 10 year term. They can still be appointed as they are now, but out in 10 years.
5-4. We lose. You heard it here first.
Reasoning: I believe they believe the constitution to be a living document that must be bent to whatever cultural demand is made of it rather than causing the culture to conform to the document. In so doing, they ignore the provision in the document to modify it. That's why judicial activism is not only wrong, but treason.
We actually need a constitutional amendment to limit the appointment of all federal judges to a 10 year term. They can still be appointed as they are now, but out in 10 years.
5-4. We lose. You heard it here first.
I will go the other way and at least say it is 5-4 we win. The skinny is that Scalia is writing the majority. I actually would like to see at least a 6-3 vote and a 7-2 would be a nail in the coffin for a lot of things.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2008, 08:35:13 PM
The Left.
In their deranged world-view, the only reason people vote for Republicans is because they are silly and fixated with "meaningless" issues like abortion or guns. What they really mean is that they want you to "compromise" with them, lie down, and take their vision of the future.
It's coming anyway.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 25, 2008, 10:07:55 PM
Because then you will see the 14th kick in and then a lot of things will fall our way.
Post by: BryanP on June 26, 2008, 01:46:12 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 26, 2008, 02:09:12 AM
Note who are the people who are most often talking about "wedge issues":
The Left.
In their deranged world-view, the only reason people vote for Republicans is because they are silly and fixated with "meaningless" issues like abortion or guns. What they really mean is that they want you to "compromise" with them, lie down, and take their vision of the future.
The Left.
In their deranged world-view, the only reason people vote for Republicans is because they are silly and fixated with "meaningless" issues like abortion or guns. What they really mean is that they want you to "compromise" with them, lie down, and take their vision of the future.
Well put.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
Final guesses.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 04:19:31 AM
About an hour or so away.
Final guesses.
Final guesses.
*runs around in circles*
I am nervous.
Post by: cherryriver on June 26, 2008, 04:26:05 AM
Still, better now than in the new Obama court. Who knows what sort of stuff that Court's going to invent.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on June 26, 2008, 04:26:13 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 04:31:35 AM
Quote
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Quote
"The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough... The people themselves,... [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 04:31:52 AM
First time I've ever really paid this close attention to a SCOTUS decision. And I've got friggin' butterflies I'm so anxious!!!!
I'm probably going to start pounding F5 in a half hour...
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 04:35:59 AM
First time I've ever really paid this close attention to a SCOTUS decision. And I've got friggin' butterflies I'm so anxious!!!!
I'm probably going to start pounding F5 in a half hour...
You don't need to refresh their page. It's a push app.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 04:36:48 AM
Post by: cslinger on June 26, 2008, 04:47:35 AM
I would argue that it is dangerous to continue arguing for far left ideal or far right ideals and that to win back America we need to educate and win back the center.
I would also think that there are several if not a great many folks on this site that hold ideals that cross current party lines but happen to lean more right then left.
I would also submit that the biggest problem with the big two parties is that neither view the Constitution as a whole and both pick and choose and legislate it into what they want it to be. I agree its about control and I also agree it is about power. I just think that if we could educate the masses instead of playing to the left or right we could take back at least a piece of this country.
But then again, no matter how bad it gets there's always bourbon.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 04:52:49 AM
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 04:55:54 AM
You don't need to refresh their page. It's a push app.
Can't access that part due to the firewall...
Post by: cslinger on June 26, 2008, 05:03:55 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:06:05 AM
AGGGHHHHH!
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 05:07:38 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:09:28 AM
Is it just me or does it seem as if time is standing still right now?
This is history.
Post by: cslinger on June 26, 2008, 05:10:18 AM
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 05:10:58 AM
They say it will be the last one read.
AGGGHHHHH!
AGGGHHHHH!
Are they trying to make it like a TV show?
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 05:13:10 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 05:13:36 AM
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 05:13:43 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:13:55 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 26, 2008, 05:14:22 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 05:14:30 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 05:15:49 AM
5-4 us
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:17:14 AM
It's going to take a federal lawsuit to make him comply, though.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on June 26, 2008, 05:17:25 AM
Post by: cslinger on June 26, 2008, 05:17:50 AM
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 05:18:31 AM
Post by: cslinger on June 26, 2008, 05:19:04 AM
So this means we get MG's now right El Tejon........
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:22:42 AM
Why the hell are they even living in America anyway? Why don't they go to Europe? Or North Korea?
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 05:23:15 AM
Post by: Fly320s on June 26, 2008, 05:24:42 AM
Looks like a few states like CA, MA, NY, and IL are going to have to remove some laws
Depends on how broad or narrow the ruling. Don't hold your breath.
Post by: BryanP on June 26, 2008, 05:24:46 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 05:25:32 AM
Justice Antonin Scalias opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washingtons strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in ones 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.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:26:13 AM
Looks like a few states like CA, MA, NY, and IL are going to have to remove some laws
Depends on how broad or narrow the ruling. Don't hold your breath.Well, this, from the opinion...
Quote
Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
That KILLS a new AWB.
What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?
Post by: StopTheGrays on June 26, 2008, 05:29:02 AM
Quote
What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?
My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? 
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 05:30:38 AM
Quote
What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?
My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? AR-15's comes in a multitude of sporting calibers now, so I think that point is moot.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:32:06 AM
Quote
What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?
My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? That's not what it says. Scalia would have said sporting use if he means sporting use. The case means "common use".
It's a simple argument, I think. What rifle would and do most people reach for when they reach for a rifle to use for self-defense? What was seen most after Katrina?
Every picture I saw, people tended to have ARs or various AK derivatives on a sling. One is "America's Rifle", the other is simply the world's most reliable rifle in dirty and adverse conditions. And there's millions of them in the hands of the people. That's your "common use" right there.
And yes, both are widely used for sport, now, too. (Thank you, Saiga!)
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 05:33:52 AM
Post by: Fly320s on June 26, 2008, 05:36:37 AM
Guess I have something to read on the way to Seattle.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:36:53 AM
Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Machineguns aren't in common use, so they aren't protected; but if they were protected, they would likely be protected under "common use"; right?
Maybe, but it it ensures that what's already commonly in the hands of the people, effective semiautomatic rifles, will stay in the hands of the people.
Machine guns have limited practicality. Semiauto rifles are the arguably the best tool for defense against armed intruders at short and long ranges.
Post by: taurusowner on June 26, 2008, 05:42:17 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:44:38 AM
So what about SBRs?
Good question. There's an assumption that a rifle with a barrel under 16" is going to be used for a crime, and that makes no sense. That ought to be struck down, as it's all bureaucratic technicalities.
I can buy a .308 pistol with a 10" barrel, but I can't put a longer stock on it or it's breaking federal laws.
If I want to put a stock on it to aim it more accurately, I need to get one with a 16" barrel.
That is silly.
Same applies to "silencers". What is wrong with wishing to protect your own eardrums when defending your home? Why do they enforce a law that amounts to forcing people to accept permanent hearing loss for themselves and family members when they have to stop an intruder from attacking their family?
Post by: mtnbkr on June 26, 2008, 05:49:13 AM
Let's give this time to sink in and take effect, then we can start working on things like machine guns, SBRs, Silencers, etc.
BTW, the "Nation's Gunshow is in Chantilly at the end of July, what better way to celebrate this than to buy a gun within smelling distance of DC...
I haven't purchased a gun in over 2 years. It might be time to do so.
Chris
Post by: Josh Aston on June 26, 2008, 05:50:28 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:54:43 AM
BTW, the "Nation's Gunshow is in Chantilly at the end of July, what better way to celebrate this than to buy a gun within smelling distance of DC...
Local gun shop mentioned that they have someone selling on consignment that might be selling a Daewoo K2 through them. They're going to let me know how much they want. If it's reasonable, I'll probably pick that up to celebrate.
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
157 pages of decision.
Guess I have something to read on the way to Seattle.
Guess I have something to read on the way to Seattle.
I was thumbing through it, the first three pages are the majority opinion and the rest are stuff from the lower courts, might be some more stuff but it will take me a few days to sort it out.
-Charby
Post by: RevDisk on June 26, 2008, 05:57:17 AM
Baby steps...
Dude, read this:
Quote
Held:
1. 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.
Pp. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
[snip]
d) The Second Amendments drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
1. 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.
Pp. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
[snip]
d) The Second Amendments drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
woot!
Post by: Silver Bullet on June 26, 2008, 05:59:15 AM
Quote
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas
Glad I voted for Bush.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 06:00:44 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 26, 2008, 06:01:21 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 06:05:34 AM
Quote
That KILLS a new AWB.
Yes.
But no select-fire rifles.
No short-barreled shotguns.
No silencers.
Why did they write it this way?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 06:06:28 AM
This is just a tiny step forward.
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 06:09:41 AM
One small victory in a war we are losing. Incrementalism and patience have paid off for the fearmongers and the ignorance spreaders.
This is just a tiny step forward.
This is just a tiny step forward.
But it's not a step backwards!
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 06:11:07 AM
Quote
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on June 26, 2008, 06:12:23 AM
I call this a solid double, maybe even a triple. Why? It strikes down outright gun bans as unconstitutional. It affirms an individual right to the posession of firearms "in common use." There goes an AWB out the window too... Furthermore, I believe it opens the door for future progress. We're definitely in scoring position...
Post by: Mabs2 on June 26, 2008, 06:15:10 AM
Quote
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Post by: charby on June 26, 2008, 06:15:31 AM
I don't agree with one thing Scalia wrote, though.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.
Quote
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.
MW
He wrote:
Quote
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct
He didn't say he thought that, he said some people thought that, also he mentioned it wasn't the role of the court to remove the 2nd amendment either.
Post by: Firethorn on June 26, 2008, 06:17:38 AM
Today is a good day! SCOTUS rules in our favor and I get promoted. Drinks on me!
Congratulations on making MSgt!
Oh, and as far as the 'common use' thing goes, we might have a wedge in the form of the M4 for both SBRs and automatic weapons. After all, it's in common use by our very own military.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 06:18:11 AM
I don't agree with one thing Scalia wrote, though.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.
Quote
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.
MW
He wrote:
Quote
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct
He didn't say he thought that, he said some people thought that, also he mentioned it wasn't the role of the court to remove the 2nd amendment either.
Yeah. I know. I just don't like how he worded it. He could have worded that section a bit differently, such as "where people expect that police forces will be immediately available to protect them", which is a bit more thought-provoking, because it's simply not true. Also, "gun violence" is the leftist made-up term. Guns do not go out and commit violence. That's like saying "baseball bat violence" or "brick violence". We have a problem with violent criminals. Guns are just one tool they use.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 06:20:58 AM
Oh, and as far as the 'common use' thing goes, we might have a wedge in the form of the M4 for both SBRs and automatic weapons. After all, it's in common use by our very own military.
The court specifically denied this line of thinking:
"That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Acts restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Millers ordinary military equipment language must be read in tandem with what comes after:
- rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
So M4's are flat out, because they are not commonly possessed by citizens.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 06:24:17 AM
Anyone catch this on page ten?
Quote
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
One could, and should make that argument.
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 06:24:35 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."
Crime rates in DC were FAR FAR FAR below what they are today when the DC gun ban was first instituted.
But, not surprising logic from a man who voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech act some years ago.
Post by: Mabs2 on June 26, 2008, 06:24:42 AM
Quote from: page 26
the militia is assumed by
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to provide for calling forth the militia, §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to organiz[e] itand not
to organize a militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
the militia, connoting a body already in existence
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to provide for calling forth the militia, §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to organiz[e] itand not
to organize a militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
the militia, connoting a body already in existence
Quote from: page 26
Finally, the adjective well-regulated implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Post by: Antibubba on June 26, 2008, 06:33:00 AM
Quote
Quote
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?
It could also help eliminate a lot of silly knife laws.
Yes, the decision is narrow in some ways. But it specifically affirms an individual right. I'll be celebrating this for some time. And this is my regularly scheduled range weekend, so I'll fire a few for freedom.
Post by: HankB on June 26, 2008, 06:38:18 AM
This de-facto prohibition was thrown out as unconstititional.
Mayor Daley, are you listening up there in Chicago?
Post by: LAK on June 26, 2008, 06:38:43 AM
Quote
Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Machineguns aren't in common use, so they aren't protected; but if they were protected, they would likely be protected under "common use"; right?
I doubt it is true now, but a few years back there were more automatic (NFA class III) weapons in private hands than police agencies. Either way, given the numbers in private hands and police agencies, they are very much in common use.------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 06:41:13 AM
But, for now, I'm a happy camper.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 06:41:45 AM
Gotta love this leap of logic...
"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."
"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."
Because the criminals, people who by definition ignore laws, were not:
- keeping guns in their homes illegally
- using the guns illegally
Okay, then...
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 06:42:25 AM
Nick1911
Quote
Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Machineguns aren't in common use, so they aren't protected; but if they were protected, they would likely be protected under "common use"; right?
I doubt it is true now, but a few years back there were more automatic (NFA class III) weapons in private hands than police agencies. Either way, given the numbers in private hands and police agencies, they are very much in common use.I suppose that is arguably true. There are what, 200,000 privately held MG's in the US? Of which, nearly all are used for lawful purpose?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 06:43:58 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 06:45:29 AM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 06:48:12 AM
Their head hump, in interviews several days ago, conceded the fact that they were going to lose.
They also lost on their biggest closet issue -- the individual right aspect.
They know they're grasping, though, and they know they have to keep a rosy face on things.
What would you expect them to do, come out with "We've lost it all!"
Their contributions would dry up in a heartbeat.
Post by: Mabs2 on June 26, 2008, 06:49:35 AM
Hey, I was just over at teh Brady cite, and they are hailing the decision as a victory for their side, as they see the Heller decision as allowing them to continue to push for common sense gun control laws. I guess they see the rain as liquid sunshine through their rose tinted glasses...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992
That's funny.http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992
Quote
Quote
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?
b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the right the people to the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.
Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?
It could also help eliminate a lot of silly knife laws.
Yes, the decision is narrow in some ways. But it specifically affirms an individual right. I'll be celebrating this for some time. And this is my regularly scheduled range weekend, so I'll fire a few for freedom.
Oh man I hope so.
I'd LOVE to carry a nice big knife under my jacket like Crocodile Dundee.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 06:52:26 AM
Oh man I hope so.
I'd LOVE to carry a nice big knife under my jacket like Crocodile Dundee.
I'd LOVE to carry a nice big knife under my jacket like Crocodile Dundee.
Well, you can carry a machete. The MS-13 sorts in Boston sure do.
There was a machete fight in city hall plaza right across from Faneuil Hall a couple months ago.
Personally, I'm fine with machetes being their weapon of choice. My solution is the same one Indy had.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 26, 2008, 06:55:26 AM
Mods: Shouldn't this be moved to the Round Table where all the other court decisions were moved?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 06:59:03 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 06:59:51 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 07:00:32 AM
From the sticky topic, "What's a Political topic?"
"Political topics can also include current "hot button" topics, such as immigration, firearms rights, etc., when discussed in a political context."
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 07:01:20 AM
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 07:06:06 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 07:09:13 AM
Pose with a brand-new barn jacket and borrowed duck gun? Or pout because he can't throw the Supreme Court under the bus?
Can he throw himself under the bus? He would need to, since he refused to sign the amicus.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 07:10:36 AM
Post by: agricola on June 26, 2008, 07:15:20 AM
So what is Obama going to do?
Pose with a brand-new barn jacket and borrowed duck gun? Or pout because he can't throw the Supreme Court under the bus?
Can he throw himself under the bus?
Pose with a brand-new barn jacket and borrowed duck gun? Or pout because he can't throw the Supreme Court under the bus?
Can he throw himself under the bus?
Either that or become embittered at the decision, move to a struggling small town and embrace guns and religion.
Post by: HankB on June 26, 2008, 07:16:42 AM
What if they were fined or imprisoned for a time?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 07:17:23 AM
Quote
'There is simply no comparison at all between a man who is armed and a man who is not armed. ... Why should a man who is wrong, and armed, pay any attention at all to a man who is right, and not armed?" -Machiavelli
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 07:20:18 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 07:22:05 AM
The DC mayor is on Fox News right now. Wish I had a feed.
Apparently he thinks it doesn't apply to semi-automatic handguns. What a tool.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 07:23:58 AM
I wish I wasn't so bothered by reality.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 26, 2008, 07:24:31 AM
The DC mayor is on Fox News right now. Wish I had a feed.
http://www.livenewscameras.com/Post by: longeyes on June 26, 2008, 07:27:48 AM
I have not yet looked at the ruling and opinions in depth, but...
Well, we prevailed, and that is obviously A Good Thing, but the fact that it was five to four is a bit amazing. I am shaking my head. That's not a margin of victory that can give us any false sense of security. Be assured that this decision will be re-visited in the coming years.
What we have done is buy time, and the older I get the more I realize that EVERYTHING, including this noble American project is just that: buying time against the seemingly inexorable energies of tyranny and disintegration. Today we live. Onward. We have a lot of work to do.
I think, in the end, that this ruling was not about gun rights but, bluntly, about the viability of the Court itself. An adverse decision would have been, without doubt, politically convulsive.
Godspeed to all of us.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 07:30:15 AM
Post by: El Tejon on June 26, 2008, 07:40:20 AM
Quote
Here's a question to the legal-eagles here: what happens to the records of people convicted of violating a law that is later found to be unconstitutional?
Pardon or Petition for Post Conviction Relief
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 07:41:38 AM
But is anyone else scared by the fact that 4 supreme court justices are either unable or unwilling to accept the plain-as-day-obvious meaning of the constitution?
Post by: El Tejon on June 26, 2008, 07:43:01 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 07:44:57 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 07:46:33 AM
The how on God's green earth did we allow them to be confirmed?
The same way that people are thinking that voting for Obama is a good idea, despite the collectivist talk?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 07:53:08 AM
I'm glad we won.
But is anyone else scared by the fact that 4 supreme court justices are either unable or unwilling to accept the plain-as-day-obvious meaning of the constitution?
But is anyone else scared by the fact that 4 supreme court justices are either unable or unwilling to accept the plain-as-day-obvious meaning of the constitution?
Not nearly as scared as I am that so many Americans actually believe the myth that the SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to essentially legislate through its rulings.
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 07:53:14 AM
He appeared to be a moderately conservative judge when Bush appointed him in the early 1990s, but he's turned into a freaking nightmare.
Post by: seeker_two on June 26, 2008, 07:56:58 AM
Now it's time to start fighting our way forward. Our side has started filing cases in Chicago and NYC....let's do all we can to support this effort.....
....and support the local efforts where you live, too. I'm joining TSRA ASAP...
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 07:57:51 AM
Wow.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on June 26, 2008, 08:14:31 AM
Quote
Okay, that's shocking. I nosed at the BBC boards, and people are fussing that despite the bans over there, "gun crime" has been rising more and more every year. They've taken notice of this decision.
Wow.
Wow.
Linky?
Are you suggesting that this might invigorate the Brits to revisit lawful possession of firearms for people of honor to resist the tyranny of criminal scum?
That would be a fabulous result that could spread to other corners of Europe and to Canada as well.
America leading again... imagine that.
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 08:34:17 AM
What's it like over there?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 08:36:22 AM
Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?
What's it like over there?
What's it like over there?
Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.
Quote
My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 26, 2008, 08:45:37 AM
Quote
5-4. We lose. You heard it here first.
Umm, how exactly would you like your crow served up, Grampster?
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 08:46:07 AM
"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," McCain said.
Post by: El Tejon on June 26, 2008, 08:55:08 AM
Quote
The how on God's green earth did we allow them to be confirmed?
The right wing of the Republican party was quite vocal when Bush I nominated the syrup-sipping Souter.
There were plenty of conservatives to pick from but Bush did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade before the '92 election (remember the Casey decision) as he thought he could play it safe by being nice with the Left (tax hikes and preserving the fiction of Roe v. Wade).
Post by: StopTheGrays on June 26, 2008, 09:21:19 AM
Quote
The how on God's green earth did we allow them to be confirmed?
The right wing of the Republican party was quite vocal when Bush I nominated the syrup-sipping Souter.
There were plenty of conservatives to pick from but Bush did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade before the '92 election (remember the Casey decision) as he thought he could play it safe by being nice with the Left (tax hikes and preserving the fiction of Roe v. Wade).
Post by: SteveS on June 26, 2008, 09:25:51 AM
Nice quote from McCain...
"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," McCain said.
"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," McCain said.
Does this mean that McCain will recognize it? He doesn't have the best track record in this area. I wonder if he changed his mind.
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 09:27:18 AM
Post by: Balog on June 26, 2008, 09:33:10 AM
Nice quote from McCain...
"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," McCain said.
"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," McCain said.
Does this mean that McCain will recognize it? He doesn't have the best track record in this area. I wonder if he changed his mind.
If by "changed his mind" you mean "is trying to pander to the people he's been screwing for years" then the answer is yes.
Also what Mike Irwin said.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 09:38:59 AM
Wayne LaPierre has also stated that lawsuits are being readied for NYC, Chicago and San Fransisco. May actually go for inclusion and get a 14th amendment ruling out of it.
Post by: seeker_two on June 26, 2008, 10:05:05 AM
Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?
What's it like over there?
What's it like over there?
Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.
Quote
My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows......
Post by: AJ Dual on June 26, 2008, 10:22:17 AM
Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?
What's it like over there?
What's it like over there?
Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.
Quote
My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows......
Honestly, I find the "The 2nd Amdendment says what it says, get over it, but lets's call a constitutional convention..." angle refreshing.
It's the way those things are supposed to happen. And it shows that we've dragged a few of our enemies into realizing they need to at least play by the rules.
Also, of course, even if Obama wins with better than 50% of the vote, getting the 2/3rds supermajorites needed in 2/3rds of the state legislatures to do away with the 2nd has got a snowflake's chance in hell for the foreseeable future.
Post by: HankB on June 26, 2008, 10:39:53 AM
Quote
Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms
And once we've established the precedent that part of the Bill of Rights can be abolished, we can get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment so police won't have to waste time on warrants . . . abolish the 1st Amendment, because some things ought not be allowed to be said . . . etc. etc.
Post by: Werewolf on June 26, 2008, 11:48:58 AM
Quote
Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms
And once we've established the precedent that part of the Bill of Rights can be abolished, we can get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment so police won't have to waste time on warrants . . . abolish the 1st Amendment, because some things ought not be allowed to be said . . . etc. etc. I imagine if that happened quite a few states would consider the covenant broken and abandon the union. Montana has already gone on record with that position.
Post by: longeyes on June 26, 2008, 12:33:25 PM
Post by: El Tejon on June 26, 2008, 12:43:32 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 02:53:09 PM
Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 26, 2008, 02:53:58 PM
So, uh, where's the ACLU been all day?
Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?
I bet not.
Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?
Post by: geronimotwo on June 26, 2008, 03:06:59 PM
Quote
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=ApNQR2r5JP9O6BTsDWSMgYSs0NUE
he must not have read the second amendment.
Post by: Mabs2 on June 26, 2008, 03:07:57 PM
For those who want to abolish the Bill of Rights I have one word: SECESSION.
Yea but which side? If they secede then we're stuck with the current system...I'd much rather the pro liberty/BOR people secede so we can start over fresh and nice.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 03:10:47 PM
Post by: De Selby on June 26, 2008, 03:14:02 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on June 26, 2008, 03:37:32 PM
It's important as ever for activists to deliver results now-to prove that all the money and time gun owners have been donating are worthwhile, and to keep the momentum up.
My uncle said the NRA was making plans to 'attack' the Chicago and California laws, but that's all I've heard.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on June 26, 2008, 04:04:03 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on June 26, 2008, 07:09:48 PM
Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?
What's it like over there?
What's it like over there?
Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.
Quote
My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!
by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT
I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows......
Settle down Archie.
Post by: longeyes on June 26, 2008, 07:15:08 PM
Quote
Yea but which side? If they secede then we're stuck with the current system...I'd much rather the pro liberty/BOR people secede so we can start over fresh and nice.
I meant that if the 2A is expunged by the amendment process, there is a plausible scenario to be made for OUR SIDE seceding. The next few years will be momentous in the history of this Republic.
Post by: gunsmith on June 26, 2008, 07:23:01 PM
Quote
Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?
I would bet the ACLU will still be stalinist.
Ruth voted against it and she used to run the ACLU AFAIK
Post by: K Frame on June 26, 2008, 07:57:01 PM
First Amendment -- Uhm.... strike the entire thing. An anachronism. The Founders never could have conceived of television, radio, or newspaper presses that can print 100,000 copies of a paper in an hour. And we know how destructive a "free" press can be. Don't believe me? Ask Richard Jewell or Steven Hatfill.
Also, we've all seen what happens when people "peacably" assemble. Riots. And petition the government for redress? What kind of crap is that? Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, and Breyer would like us all to know that the government is infallible, so there is certainly NO need for citizens to be able to petition it.
Third Amendment. Quartering of troops? Holy hell, that's why they build barracks! Another anachronism that needs to go. It just wastes ink and valuable paper every time the government prints a copy of the Bill of Rights.
Fourth Amendment. Once again, the government is infallible. There's no need to believe that they'd conduct unreasonable searches/seizures.
Fifth Amendment? Too many criminals are slipping though this loophole! It needs to be stopped!
And, so forth and so on.
You know, NONE of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights has worked out very well for us. I think it's time to get rid of them all. We need to BELIEVE in the good grace and charm of our government. That will make it work correctly again!
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 08:18:11 PM
Post by: LAK on June 26, 2008, 10:03:39 PM
Quote
Honestly, I find the "The 2nd Amdendment says what it says, get over it, but lets's call a constitutional convention..." angle refreshing.
A disaster; if we get suckered into a convention you can bank on a couple of things. Firstly, the media will dig up every single shooting nationwide and saturate the news with the gory details of the deaths of the youngest and most feeble.And we will get our "clearly worded" and redefined 2nd Amendment.
Unwilling to open their mouths and speak, shying away from being seen as monsters amidth a visual and audio tidal wave of death and suffering, carefully edited, enhanced and presented media - most all of those "pro gun republicans" and "democrats" will be silently waving their arms for the "yays". These same turncoats will be suddenly adjusting their shoe laces and looking at their cellphone menus as the few "nays" - now "radical nuts" - make their last effort.
And bingo; now a clearly worded 2nd, watered down, with chapters of "ifs" and "buts" restrictions, controls and open-ended government options for it to "evolve" later on. Now the law of the Land.
Suicide.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 26, 2008, 10:06:51 PM
Post by: RevDisk on June 27, 2008, 02:03:52 AM
NRA sued Chicago today, see http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13208
Okey, NRA is gonna get a nice check from me. Doubt their legal wing is tax deductable, but I could care less. I'm throwing a celebration tonight.
Hell, I'd send every lawyer they got a case of nice champagne if the Hughes Amendment is defeated. We've seized the initiative, we need to continue.
Quote
My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.
2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.
Thatd be fine with me.
You know, I've read this about five times. Dude, an anti with a logical understanding of the Constitution? Haven't seen many of those.
Whoever wrote it is correct. The 2A says what it says and the only way to change it is a Constitutional amendment. They are welcome to do so. Fully above board and all that. Granted, removing rights enumerated in the BoR is a bad idea. Unless the next amendment was very strongly worded, there would be 9th and 10th amendment law suits. Removing the enumeration of the words "right to keep and bear arms" from the BoR would not remove the actual right. You'd have to remove the words, AND specify that the RKBA is nullified. IANAL, but I think the logic is correct.
Thoughts?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 27, 2008, 02:06:12 AM
Quote
Okey, NRA is gonna get a nice check from me. Doubt their legal wing is tax deductable, but I could care less. I'm throwing a celebration tonight.
Why a check to the NRA? Why not to the people who actually started and fought Heller?
Post by: Silver Bullet on June 27, 2008, 05:59:45 AM
Meanwhile, the NRA is now preparing lawsuits against several cities.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 27, 2008, 06:02:51 AM
Because, last I heard, Heller's people were refusing donations.
The Cato Institute is refusing donations? That's interesting, because when I bought at their online store, they had a special section for donating.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 27, 2008, 06:10:49 AM
Well it was a close win and the reaction is very nice to see.
Post by: AJ Dual on June 27, 2008, 06:50:09 AM
Because, last I heard, Heller's people were refusing donations.
The Cato Institute is refusing donations? That's interesting, because when I bought at their online store, they had a special section for donating.
Gura is affiliated with Cato. However this was a mostly separate project of his, he wanted to be as independant as possible to work the case his way without anyone pulling the purse strings.
Post by: El Tejon on June 27, 2008, 01:17:38 PM
Post by: SteveS on June 27, 2008, 05:34:52 PM
Because, last I heard, Heller's people were refusing donations.
Meanwhile, the NRA is now preparing lawsuits against several cities.
Meanwhile, the NRA is now preparing lawsuits against several cities.
The SAF, too.
Post by: grislyatoms on June 28, 2008, 07:53:18 AM
I have been away from any sort of media since last Monday and I just heard the decision!
Got warm fuzzies hearing about Daley's temper tantrums.
Go suck eggs, Daley.I'd love to see the Feds drag him into a courtroom, along with Blagodjevic, Fenty, Feinstein, et al.
Cato and the NRA are going to get a donation (albeit small) from me this very day.
I love to watch hated politicians (especially the gun grabbing socialist crowd) squirm.
Damn, I feel like a kid at Christmas!
