Post by: Nick1911 on June 16, 2008, 12:57:58 PM
Post by: longeyes on June 16, 2008, 02:00:33 PM
We could be in the last days of the Rule of Law in America.
Post by: 41magsnub on June 16, 2008, 02:04:35 PM
Post by: longeyes on June 16, 2008, 03:23:04 PM
Post by: 41magsnub on June 16, 2008, 03:35:15 PM
I hate to tell you this but the boat has a serious hole in the bottom and is taking on water.
Really? Most all of the speculation I have seen is tentatively positive. What is your prediction then Mr. Negative?
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 16, 2008, 04:26:19 PM
Best case: I think all states will become shall issue, NFA item ownership is allowed in all states but registration is still the same, the registry is reopened.
"not good but ok": The DC ban is struck down and Chicago ends their ban because they know they will be next if they don't.
Realistically what I think will happen: DC ban is struck down and federal law will supersede all state laws allowing all citizens legally entitled to possess non-NFA weapons to keep said weapons in their house or property in a state of readiness. California may have parts of their AWBish laws killed in the process. Chicago will S*** themselves along with DC and SF. CCW laws remain as they are.
Post by: lupinus on June 16, 2008, 04:34:55 PM
The ruling will be in our favor but limited in scope. DC ban will be overturned and will set precedent to over turn (or possible, but not likely, a broader ruling that will immediately do this) similar laws. The key that it will do that will help us all in the years to come is set the stage clarifying firearms ownership and the right to defend yourself as an individual not a collective right.
But it will stick very close to the issue at hand which is the DC ban.
Post by: longeyes on June 16, 2008, 04:56:16 PM
Until last week I believed we'd win a clear and much-need victory with Heller, although I also believe the ruling will contain way too much wriggle room for us to get complacent.
My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Post by: seeker_two on June 17, 2008, 01:25:57 AM
My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords.
You think we'll be that lucky?......I'm thinking one-world government Koffi-Annan-style....
Post by: HankB on June 17, 2008, 03:39:51 AM
I expect the DC ban will be overturned, with language that will effectively overturn Chicago's de-facto ban. The scope will probably be quite narrow, very specific to the issues raised explicitly in Heller, leaving larger questions unanswered.
Chicago will still probably require a Federal lawsuit to get the city's compliance.
Otherwise, I expect the court will be silent on the matter of registration and NFA items (though the latter topic was raised during oral arguments) because - AFAIK - Heller did not specifically address registration, ownership, or possession of NFA items.
(If the court issues a broad ruling and the NFA registry is re-opened, I see an HKMP5SD in my future as soon as the price drops below $1k . . .
)
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 17, 2008, 03:41:04 AM
Who is running the pool? I've got $5 on an overthrow of the DC gun ban specifically, but for the decision to be worded such that it will not matter for NFA items. I doubt SCOTUS will want to rock the boat that much.
I think the Supremes will pretty much do as 41mag calls it. DC ban will fall, but little useful guidance.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 17, 2008, 03:55:20 AM
This is a place where they put a nurse in jail for 10 months for pulling an officer out of a burning vehicle. They accused her of stealing the officer's weapon.
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 17, 2008, 04:02:14 AM
Chicago won't give in that easily. Daley would never concede. He already rules Illinois thanks to his puppet governor, so it'd take a federal lawsuit or more to get them to comply...and then the Chicago PD would still go around arresting/shooting people for legal CCW, and get away with it.
This is a place where they put a nurse in jail for 10 months for pulling an officer out of a burning vehicle. They accused her of stealing the officer's weapon.
Link?
This is a place where they put a nurse in jail for 10 months for pulling an officer out of a burning vehicle. They accused her of stealing the officer's weapon.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 17, 2008, 04:04:15 AM
Chicago won't give in that easily. Daley would never concede. He already rules Illinois thanks to his puppet governor, so it'd take a federal lawsuit or more to get them to comply...and then the Chicago PD would still go around arresting/shooting people for legal CCW, and get away with it.
This is a place where they put a nurse in jail for 10 months for pulling an officer out of a burning vehicle. They accused her of stealing the officer's weapon.
Link? This is a place where they put a nurse in jail for 10 months for pulling an officer out of a burning vehicle. They accused her of stealing the officer's weapon.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367014,00.html
Post by: Scout26 on June 17, 2008, 05:40:16 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/958879,CST-NWS-mell20.article
[Squeaky high pitched Mayor Daley Voice] Ya see Your Honor, we don't have a ban, we just hadda deal where if you forgot, you can re-register your guns.....
Post by: ilbob on June 17, 2008, 07:39:40 AM
Post by: longeyes on June 17, 2008, 08:30:54 AM
Quote
Quote from: longeyes on June 16, 2008, 09:56:16 PM
"My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords."
"You think we'll be that lucky?......I'm thinking one-world government Koffi-Annan-style...."
"My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords."
"You think we'll be that lucky?......I'm thinking one-world government Koffi-Annan-style...."
Not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 17, 2008, 10:24:46 AM
Quote
Quote from: longeyes on June 16, 2008, 09:56:16 PM
"My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords."
"You think we'll be that lucky?......I'm thinking one-world government Koffi-Annan-style...."
"My real concern is that what is happening with the 2A is being played out against many other encroachments on our vital interests in the civil liberties area. I see the rule of law, sovereignty, citizenship all radically threatened. We'll have our guns, and that's good, but we'll end up living in a nation devolving into fiefdoms of tribal warlords."
"You think we'll be that lucky?......I'm thinking one-world government Koffi-Annan-style...."
Not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Chicago is already a tribal fiefdom. There is Daley, and what Daley says...goes. What opposes Daley just GOES.
Then there's Detroit's urban prairies overseen by Mayor Thug...
Post by: AJ Dual on June 17, 2008, 11:06:14 AM
- The D.C. Gun Ban is unconstitutional, upholding the lower appeals court ruling.
- If there is any scrutiny standard given, it will be "moderate scrutiny".
Those three things, even just the first two, and silence on the scrutiny standard, leaving it to future cases to build up over time like the 1st Amendment's scrutiny standard has, will be a HUGE WIN for us as-is,
If you're expecting anything more than this like 14th Amendment incorporation, striking of the MG freeze rider in the '86 FOPA, or NFA 34 itself to be stricken. Or if you think merely getting the above is a "compromise" or a "sell out", you don't understand the Supreme Court, it's history or jurisprudence, or the judicial branch at all.
Post by: Werewolf on June 17, 2008, 12:17:27 PM
Best Case - Affirms individual right, incorporation, opinion written broad enough that the supremes indirectly acknowledge that 34 NFA and 68 GCA are unconstitutional.
Worst Case - 2nd is a collective right, any restriction on individual ownership and use is reasonable, only individuals in a militia, unorganized or otherwise, have the right to keep a firearm and only for training purposes. Current legal definition of militia allows states, cities etc to disarm anyone older than 45 and younger than 16 who isn't a male. States begin disarming US citizens.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 17, 2008, 12:29:28 PM
Post by: Tallpine on June 17, 2008, 06:05:01 PM
Both sides will be unhappy with the result.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on June 17, 2008, 08:23:17 PM
If the ruling is far enough on our side, though, Daley may secede from the union, and pledge himself to Hamas.
Post by: Finch on June 17, 2008, 11:39:31 PM
Post by: ilbob on June 18, 2008, 05:40:00 AM
We need to see a reaffirmation of the 2nd as an individual and unrestrictable right. Any other equivocation by any of these 'justices' will mean that tyranny is not far away.
Just out of curiousity. Are there any RTKBA restrictions at all you are willing to live with?Would you agree to a mandatory requirement that a gun safety pamphlet be supplied with each gun sold?
Instant background check?
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Can children bring guns to school with them?
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 18, 2008, 06:23:34 AM
We need to see a reaffirmation of the 2nd as an individual and unrestrictable right. Any other equivocation by any of these 'justices' will mean that tyranny is not far away.
Just out of curiousity. Are there any RTKBA restrictions at all you are willing to live with?Would you agree to a mandatory requirement that a gun safety pamphlet be supplied with each gun sold?
Instant background check?
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Can children bring guns to school with them?
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
no
yes
no,yes
yes
no
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 18, 2008, 08:24:07 AM
No.
Instant background check?
No.
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Yes. Also Yes.
Can children bring guns to school with them?
What are "children" in this case? Toddlers? Then No. Sixteen year olds? Yes, sure.
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
Violent felons also can't pick out the color of their clothing while in prison. Or their food.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 18, 2008, 09:05:04 AM
Would you agree to a mandatory requirement that a gun safety pamphlet be supplied with each gun sold?
No.
Instant background check?
No.
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Yes. Also Yes.
Can children bring guns to school with them?
What are "children" in this case? Toddlers? Then No. Sixteen year olds? Yes, sure.
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
Violent felons also can't pick out the color of their clothing while in prison. Or their food.
No.
Instant background check?
No.
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Yes. Also Yes.
Can children bring guns to school with them?
What are "children" in this case? Toddlers? Then No. Sixteen year olds? Yes, sure.
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
Violent felons also can't pick out the color of their clothing while in prison. Or their food.
It's okay with you if VIOLENT felons, people who have already violently violated an innocent person's rights, have firearms?
Wow. Just....wow.
Yeah, you do need to live in the larger world more.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 18, 2008, 09:15:54 AM
They had no issues with giving him a rifle of a kind you are not allowed to own.
Post by: Firethorn on June 18, 2008, 09:55:30 AM
Not a big deal to me; especially if it's something as simple as a gun safety sheet available in the store - like credit card pamphlets. Or if the manual for the firearm(containing safety information specific for that firearm) counts.
Instant background check?
Yes - there's issues with it, can stand to be cleaned up, but not a big deal.
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge?
Not in general - I think that even violent felons should have a path to get their rights restored. The Crazy dumpster diver, assuming no other disqualifications, may have one.
Can children bring guns to school with them?
Define 'child' - a elementary student bringing a gun to school is a failure on the part of the adult who lost control of a firearm to the point that a child can get ahold of it. Not a reason for suspending the kid under normal circumstances. Jr High on? Depends on the situation. I'm certainly not for a blanket ban. I support the schools have active safety and shooting programs. A gang banger bringing a piece in to shoot a rival can be busted under existing assault laws and such.
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison?
That's like asking if the 2nd covers nukes. Of course not - just like they mostly don't have the right to vote anymore, their speech can be restrained, privacy annulled, etc...
Post by: Manedwolf on June 18, 2008, 10:03:48 AM
I was in Basic Training with two "violent felons". One fellow who did a long time [20 years, IIRC] on attempted homicide, and then got out. In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
They had no issues with giving him a rifle of a kind you are not allowed to own.
They had no issues with giving him a rifle of a kind you are not allowed to own.
And an unrepentant MS-13 sort who gets out and will still beat down anyone for looking at them wrong? You'd let them buy one?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 18, 2008, 10:15:45 AM
I was in Basic Training with two "violent felons". One fellow who did a long time [20 years, IIRC] on attempted homicide, and then got out. In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
They had no issues with giving him a rifle of a kind you are not allowed to own.
They had no issues with giving him a rifle of a kind you are not allowed to own.
And an unrepentant MS-13 sort who gets out and will still beat down anyone for looking at them wrong? You'd let them buy one?
Look. The answer is, in my mind, complex.
For one, we need (and I don't care if it's America, Israel, Spain for this purpose, the problem is everywhere) tougher punishment for all violent and property crimes.
A person who committed a serious violent felony, and who has a past of previous violent misdemeanours, should receive a long jail sentence.
By this I mean:
If a person who was previously upright commits a crime they should receive a reasonable, yet stern sentence.
But if a career gang-banger commits a robbery, they should spend 20, 30 years in a dank cell. Then, when their hair is grey and they're old and tired, sure, they can start hunting ducks again.
There should never BE such a thing as a fourth robbery conviction. Or an 64th burglary conviction.
Post by: Tallpine on June 18, 2008, 10:32:41 AM
Quote
It's okay with you if VIOLENT felons, people who have already violently violated an innocent person's rights, have firearms?
There are a lot of things that are not "okay" with me, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal.
If a violent ex-con wants a gun he is going to get one somehow. I'd just as soon he bought it at the store instead of breaking in and stealing mine.
Gun control laws only affect those who aren't a problem to begin with.
I suppose I would be okay with permit-less CCW (VT, AK) being denied to those with a felony record, not that it would do a whole lot of good.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 18, 2008, 10:39:57 AM
Quote
It's okay with you if VIOLENT felons, people who have already violently violated an innocent person's rights, have firearms?
There are a lot of things that are not "okay" with me, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal.
If a violent ex-con wants a gun he is going to get one somehow. I'd just as soon he bought it at the store instead of breaking in and stealing mine.
Gun control laws only affect those who aren't a problem to begin with.
I suppose I would be okay with permit-less CCW (VT, AK) being denied to those with a felony record, not that it would do a whole lot of good.
No, I actually don't mind NICS.
Just today, I was in a store where a couple of young thuggish sorts with the "attitude" scowl came in and started prowling around, not making eye contact with anyone. They only went for the cheapest AKs on the floor and handled them. Then when one asked about "Where I ring this up?", and was told about the background check, they froze, then got even more of an attitude look, ignored the clerk's "Can I help you with anything else?" and shuffled out.
And you know? That's a good thing. The behavior and body language was just wrong. Even the clerks looked at each other with a nod after they left. It was the sort of body language that made me have heightened awareness of my own position vs. the door, cover, and where my own weapon was. THAT sense.
I would bet ten to one they had rap sheets that'd spill across the floor.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 18, 2008, 11:08:53 AM
I don't have an issue with NICS either. As noted, it gives some backing to FFL dealers so they are not responsible for determining who is legal or not. It is also one of those things that satisfies a lot of fence sitters who think there are no restrictions to buying guns over the counter at all. I agree the system and the BATFE enforcement of it could use some cleanup.
Post by: Werewolf on June 18, 2008, 11:16:52 AM
And an unrepentant MS-13 sort who gets out and will still beat down anyone for looking at them wrong? You'd let them buy one?
Well...
He can buy it from a gun store and pay tax to the state, indirectly register the thing to him self thru the 4473 or he can buy it on the street.
Buying it on the street is a huge contributor to crime because the guys selling the illegal guns have to get them somewhere - maybe from you.
So our choice is to let the criminal buy the gun at the gunstore, collect tax on it and have some traceability (probably useless) or have him buy it on the street and indirectly increase crime over and above what it would otherwise have been.
Seems like a no brainer to me...
Post by: HankB on June 18, 2008, 11:22:25 AM
Instant background check? I'd like to prevent certain classes of people - illegal aliens and minor children, for example - from buying guns, but if you're an adult and are free, you should be able to buy a gun.
Is it OK with you if violent felons have firearms? Violent felons belong in jail. If they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted to run around loose.
How about the crazy dumpster diver that lives under the bridge? Define "crazy." Unless he's committed a crime or shown himself to be a threat to others, yes.
Can children bring guns to school with them? Generally, no - children are not just short adults, and there are valid reasons that they are restricted from some adult activities, including drinking alcohol, voting, etc. Some age-based restrictions ARE appropriate. Most of these ought to go away once the "child" is old enough to vote or serve in the armed forces.
How about if violent felons have firearms while in prison? Prisoners have few rights - they're being punished for their actions. So this is a resounding no.
Post by: Firethorn on June 19, 2008, 04:35:05 AM
Quote
Would you agree to a mandatory requirement that a gun safety pamphlet be supplied with each gun sold? It serves no purpose, so I see no need for it. If a manufacturer wants to include something like the Four Rules in the instruction manual, that's not a bad thing, but I see no need for a government mandate.
Personally, I was picturing something like a trifold 8.5x11 pamphlet, much like many credit card applications. Plenty of room for a number of safety rules, a bit on the law, etc... Instead of 'supplied with each gun sold', a stack of them would be available on the gun counter. Anybody's free to take one if they want it. I think that it'd be pretty useful to somebody buying their first gun, who hasn't ever shot before, and they're buying it used from a gun store without the manual.
It's much better than requiring a $5 'gun lock' that can be bypassed by a six year old. It's more likely to be effective, and not of significant cost. Constitutionally wise, I think it'd hold up even in fairly conservative courts. If NICS isn't considered to violate the 2nd, then this won't.
I'll say that if MicroBalrog's sentencing structures actually happen, I'd respond that dismanteling NICS would make sense afterwards.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 04:54:42 AM
Quote
I'll say that if MicroBalrog's sentencing structures actually happen, I'd respond that dismanteling NICS would make sense afterwards.
I need to elaborate, I think, that these are my 'perfect-world' positions. I realize fully that now is not the time, nor the place, to really try and promote any of these.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 19, 2008, 05:01:21 AM
Quote
I'll say that if MicroBalrog's sentencing structures actually happen, I'd respond that dismanteling NICS would make sense afterwards.
I need to elaborate, I think, that these are my 'perfect-world' positions. I realize fully that now is not the time, nor the place, to really try and promote any of these.
There will never be a perfect world. Ever.
There will always be fools and idiots drooling their moronic ideas on the legislative floors.
There will aways be violent criminals who want to take, or just hurt and kill people.
At some point, you realize this.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 05:02:58 AM
Post by: stevelyn on June 20, 2008, 04:55:55 PM
Quote
In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
"The Dirty Dozen" concept put into practice. That's cool.
Post by: seeker_two on June 21, 2008, 01:26:20 PM
Quote
In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
"The Dirty Dozen" concept put into practice. That's cool.
If only we offered that for American criminals.....or illegal aliens....
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 21, 2008, 01:30:40 PM
Quote
In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
"The Dirty Dozen" concept put into practice. That's cool.
If only we offered that for American criminals.....or illegal aliens....
People would throw fits.
Post by: seeker_two on June 21, 2008, 01:55:13 PM
Quote
In Israel, you can "legally redeem yourself" by exemplary Army service, so that's what he did.
"The Dirty Dozen" concept put into practice. That's cool.
If only we offered that for American criminals.....or illegal aliens....
People would throw fits.
Yep......and I'd enjoy it, too....
Post by: Pyle on June 21, 2008, 04:40:49 PM
Post by: RocketMan on June 21, 2008, 05:40:55 PM
Post by: Scout26 on June 21, 2008, 05:59:03 PM