PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court - 5-4 In Favor of Individuals



pendennis
06-26-2008, 09:14 AM
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not subject to membership in a militia; that firearms can be owned and used in self-protection, and lawful activities.

Best,
Dennis

Dave B
06-26-2008, 09:20 AM
Yes!!!!!!

jackie schmidt
06-26-2008, 09:35 AM
We need to wait to see the majority opinion so as to see just how far reaching this is.
But at least, the Court has finally answered that age old question concerning the true meaning of the 2d amendment.
What is disturbing is it went 5-4. ......jackie

Ramsh00ter
06-26-2008, 09:43 AM
This is a fantastic day for us!

It will change nothing for now, there will have to be many law suites filed to overturn some of the laws.

What I see as the big gain, is this will make the politicians that promote these anti gun laws will have to think twice about how much money and effort it will take to skate around the 2nd Amendment.

Have no fear, this is not going to stop the anti gunner, but now we have a Supreme Court ruleing behind us.

Boys and girls, mark this day down on your Calendar!

Jackie, my friend, you are so right, it is sad and scary that we are faced with a Supreme Court Justices that are willing to ignore the Constitution in favor of their agenda.

I have already had 3 of my shooting buddies call saying we need to throw a BBQ this weekend, sounds like a good party to me :D

Randy

Bill Wynne
06-26-2008, 10:21 AM
Now, the 2 nd amendment reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is all it means. Good case for using the fewest words when there is a choice. The stuff about the militia was just put in to confuse the confused.

Concho Bill

craig
06-26-2008, 10:30 AM
The court says individuals have right to own guns! craig

gt40
06-26-2008, 10:37 AM
WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):):):)

"Aim small miss small", :D:D:D:D

gt40

Phil Deese
06-26-2008, 10:39 AM
Must own some guns!!! Strike one up for America and one down for the lib's!!!:D:D

Paul Fielder
06-26-2008, 10:56 AM
....as it was pretty clear to me but I am surprised & MAD at how close it was.

I can't believe 4 of them can't read....good day.

If this doesn't scare you into voting for JM, nothing will.

pf

gunmaker
06-26-2008, 10:56 AM
Wait to see how the liberal infested media spins this. I'm sure their opinion of this historic ruling will be as far removed from reality as usual. Desperately trying to still convince us what they think the Second Amendment really means.

BIG DAY!!!!

We should have it declared a national paid holiday for gun owners with the money for paying the holiday coming from special taxes collected from non gun owners.

Vibe
06-26-2008, 10:56 AM
Remember! We "only" "won" by one vote. This issue "should" have been closer to unanimous.

f d shuster
06-26-2008, 10:57 AM
I'll bet all the Socialist/Marxists are having a hissy fit now. Like rats trying to find their way out of a burning building. Hope none of them make it.;)

koginam
06-26-2008, 11:04 AM
I just read the courts decision and I find the reasons used in the liberal side of the court as reasons to restrict the right covered by the second amendment to be very telling, I recommend you read the whole decision to see why we need to have more conservative judges on the court. The link is above posted by Glenn Chism.

Phil Deese
06-26-2008, 11:07 AM
most of the FOR were republican appointee's and most of the AGAINST were democrat appointee's................imagine that!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Do we really want Osama appointing judges??? The "BLACK DEMOCRATIC" mayor of Washington has stated on the news that he was against the ruling and have already thrown a lot of paper work out there to slow the process down!!
Kennedy was the swing vote. The NRA spoke today after the decision, and stated they will file suit in other cities that have infringed on our rights!!
Looks like law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves.;););)

Paul Fielder
06-26-2008, 11:12 AM
7 of these were appointed by repub potus!!??

pf

Phil Deese
06-26-2008, 11:30 AM
Your correct!!! Thomas-George Senior.. Alito-George Junior..Scalia-Reagan..
Kennedy-Reagan..Roberts-George Junior..Stevens-Ford...Souter-George Senior.

2 Democrats..Ginsburg and Breyer-Clinton.

The five that past it were all republican nominees!!

The 4 against...both democrats and 2 republican nominees!!

looks like a sweep for the consevatives FOR a tie for the AGAINST!!

Chisolm
06-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Stevens Ford

Scalia Reagan

Kennedy Reagan

Souter G. H. Bush

Thomas G. H. Bush

Ginsburg Clinton

Breyer Clinton

Roberts G. W. Bush

Alito G. W. Bush

The green ones voted to support the 2nd Ammendment.

James

TomD
06-26-2008, 11:42 AM
The real story here is that the 2nd came within one vote of being ruled nonexistent. And here comes the most liberal president in history.

Phil Deese
06-26-2008, 12:04 PM
I agree!!

Larry Elliott
06-26-2008, 01:53 PM
I heard one dimwit whining that the Supreme Court decided today that the Constitution took precedent over policy decisions because of this decision. It's funny that the left can find "rights" in the Constitution that are non-existant, while not being able to find RIGHTS that are directly written in the document.

The Supreme Court is the most wonderful part of the government when they suit the fancy of the leftists, and the worst when they actually interpret it to mean what it says. Imagine that. :eek:

RJM
06-26-2008, 02:09 PM
"...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." ..."

The first 10 amendments were written exactly to limit the actions of the government. I find it very troubling a supreme court justice doesn't recognize this.

Is there any place in the constitution were the government is endowed with a "right"? The government has responisibilities but no rights.

Regards, Ron

TomD
06-26-2008, 03:30 PM
So Justice John Paul Stevens, reflecting the opinion of the bare minority, finds it hard to believe that the Framers would make a choice to limit the powers of government??????????!!!!!!!!!!

The entire Bill of Rights is meant to be an enumeration of individual rights an a limitation of governmental power.

Four of the nine believe this? My God, we are lost.

Larry Elliott
06-26-2008, 04:10 PM
It's patently obvious that the people who don't understand the four dissenters in today's Supreme Court decision never went to law school, but learned to read English. That means that we suffer from the disabilities known as common sense, and understanding. We obviously don't understand that the government should run our lives because elected and appointed officials and bureaucrats are ever so much smarter than the rest of us.

The only hope for us is that the American's With Disabilities Act may some day apply to us. Or that we get a Supreme Court that doesn't care what the EU, Canada, Mexico, or anyone else thinks except for the Constitution's authors. I was always taught that was the job of the Supremes, not making up new laws, inventing new rights, or amending the Constitution to suit their feelings. Obvously not a lot of thought involved in the dissent today. :eek:

Old Timer
06-26-2008, 04:12 PM
This was a good day for us. This is a concrete step down the road to an 75 year old question. Thank you NRA for all of your help.
This calls for a beer

OT

Old Timer
06-26-2008, 04:27 PM
This one is for all the liberals in Illinois and DC that have denied second amendment rights to all of those people for all those years.
YOU LOOSE

For all those people that they subjected to crime without any means of self defense.

For all the third shift people working at a quick mart in the bad part of town

For all the people that worked at a firearms manufacturer and lost their job

For all the single mothers in bad parts of town, who wonder how they are going to keep their children safe when the boogey man comes knocking.

WE WIN

RStiefel
06-26-2008, 04:42 PM
It's great for everyone that our high court has the cajones to finally set things straight. Their ruling does NOT give the third shift people the right to CARRY a firearm, or the single mothers in the bad parts of town the right to shoot someone. Have you ever shot someone in self defense?
This is what happens: You are read your rights, you are charged with assault with a deadly weapon, maybe murder, you are booked into your local jail, you have to retain an attorney and defend your actions. You might even be charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits (depending upon how the powers that be feel). If you happen to win this one after the tens of thousands of dollars you pay in attorneys fees, the Federal laws may apply also.

DR4NRA
06-26-2008, 05:57 PM
If you would like to read the ruling here is the link http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

WE WIN no matter how ya look at it

Old Timer
06-26-2008, 06:22 PM
RStiefel

Have you ever had someone come in to your place of business and demand money?

Have you ever driven on vacation and got lost and had people curse at you because your car was nice and tell you to unlock your doors. With your children in the back seat sleeping??

How about come home and find that you have been robbed and wonder if the criminal is still there.

Well now everyone that has, has had there second amendment verified. If you want to live in a police state its fine with me, but it wont be my state.

I will take my chances with whatever laws come my way, but right now I am happy that we all can defend our families. Have a nice day!

DONE - OT

RStiefel
06-26-2008, 06:37 PM
but my son had to shoot someone in 1999 in one of the most gun friendly states in our country, Arizona. Having said that, I have first hand knowledge about what happens. At no time did I say one should not have the right to defend ones self or family, nor did I say anything about living in a police state.
The justices said we have the right to own handguns, they also said it does NOT give us the right to carry one. That is a right given by each individual state. I happen to live in the the state with the toughest laws. Keep in mind that no matter what your state may say, Federal law will always prevail.

nrb
06-26-2008, 06:39 PM
I cannot emphasize enough that the 4 ney sayers are willing to abolish our Constitutional Rights. We must remember this and use it in the Presidential election to tell all why a dem liberal president is DANGEROUS to us!!!

best, nrb

RStiefel
06-26-2008, 06:41 PM
are Republicans. Not all Republicans vote the same way just as not all Democrats vote the same way.

Zebra13
06-26-2008, 07:01 PM
It's great for everyone that our high court has the cajones to finally set things straight. Their ruling does NOT give the third shift people the right to CARRY a firearm, or the single mothers in the bad parts of town the right to shoot someone. Have you ever shot someone in self defense?
This is what happens: You are read your rights, you are charged with assault with a deadly weapon, maybe murder, you are booked into your local jail, you have to retain an attorney and defend your actions. You might even be charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits (depending upon how the powers that be feel). If you happen to win this one after the tens of thousands of dollars you pay in attorneys fees, the Federal laws may apply also.

RStiefel, that is not what happens.

I worked a case where a homeowner shot one of the five bangers who entered his house threatening to kill him, his son, the rest of the family, etc. The banger was armed with...no bs...a beer can. He wasn't read his rights, booked into county jail, charged with anything, didn't have to hire an attorney, etc. The only real law enforcement intrusion he had to put up with was me and my co-horts in his house, 24 hours a day, for 4-5 days, armed to the teeth. He was staying up all night, guarding his castle and not sleeping much. We thought he could use some rest. He didn't seem to mind our presence. He did have to show up in court to testify against the banger he shot, though. The banger ended up going to prison for 5 or so years for home invasion (minus about two inches of femur due to a 30-30 slug...and yes, it was a Winchester 94).

Every case is different, every case is unique. There are about a zillion factors that can come into play in lethal force incindent. Two of the biggest are reasonableness, i.e., what would a "reasonable person do/think", and state of mind. I could go on for a while with all this, but I won't. But suffice to say, your doomsdayish prophecy, "this is what will happen" post is incorrect.

Justin

Old Timer
06-26-2008, 07:45 PM
What this all boils down to is people trying to force their beliefs on to other people. In this particular case the highest court in the land that we live in has said that the individual American has the right to possess a firearm for lawful use such as self defense.

I dont care what anyone says, you threaten my family or my self so that you jeopardize my ability to provide for them there may be consequences because

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES ME THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM !

6/26/2008 CASE CLOSED

mike in co
06-26-2008, 09:44 PM
I THINK YOU ARE MISSING THE REAL PICTURE.
i have a personal responsibility to protect myself, my family, my property....etc.
i do not need anyones permission to do this.

the framers of our constitution knew this and put it in print.

9 out of 9 of the justices know this, 4 know it but have private protection, so chose a political answer instead.


its amazing to me the number of gun owning nay sayers still own guns ???
if life is so bad and there is no chance to succeed...why are you here ?

mike in co
06-26-2008, 09:49 PM
The important thing to remember is that this ruling does not apply to STATE laws. The District of Columbia is part of the federal government and the 2nd applies in DC.

I may be wrong on this,but until a court holds that the 2nd is applicable against a State. Cities and states outside of DC/national parks/military bases, etc., are free to do what they wish in terms of regulation. What this ruling does is,open the doors for citizens to challenge individual States regulations that fall within the scope of the SC ruling.


Glenn

glenn...you got this all wrong.......the constitution, the bill of rights apply to all free citizens, has nothing to do with which state they live in......
it is not about WHERE, ITS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.....everywhere.

states are the true authority within the us of a( not the fed govmnt). they may create and apply rules in thier states, but they cannot conflict with the constitution, nor the bill of rights......which is why the sc heard this case.

mike in co

speedpro
06-26-2008, 10:45 PM
I'd feel much better if the Supreme Court's vote was unamious in our favor, but it was nice to see my money at work thru the NRA, though still can't figure out why they even sent that "Teddy Roosevelt" folding knife .... :confused:

micad
06-26-2008, 11:32 PM
Now, the 2 nd amendment reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is all it means. Good case for using the fewest words when there is a choice. The stuff about the militia was just put in to confuse the confused.

Concho Bill

Actually the stuff about the militia had a very significant purpose. At the time the Constitution was written militia had a very different meaning than we commonly assume today.

The Militia Act of 1792, written, for the most part, by the same guys that wrote the 2nd amendment, defined militia as consisting of ALL able bodied free males over the age of 18.

The men of America were expected to be ready to defend not only hearth and home but the community, state and nation, and to generally provide there own arms to do so.

-Mike-

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 07:19 AM
most of the FOR were republican appointee's and most of the AGAINST were democrat appointee's................imagine that!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Do we really want Osama appointing judges??? The "BLACK DEMOCRATIC" mayor of Washington has stated on the news that he was against the ruling and have already thrown a lot of paper work out there to slow the process down!!


Phil,

I'm trying very hard to read your posts and believe you can't possible be like your posts. I'm not sure you needed to call the mayor of D.C. the "BLACK DEMOCRATIC" mayor????? I know you dislike Democrats, but why put BLACK in caps also?? Come on Phil!!


The function of SCOTUS is to do just what it did. Some managed to miss the whole point of the decision. It simply said that "unreasonable regulation" is unconstitutional and attacks the citizen's right to keep and bear arms! Good!

The decision simply did what I predicted. It struck down D.C.'s sweeping, unreasonable ban on guns as it should have, but it did not say that no regulation about gun ownership could exist. It just put the country on notice that "unreasonable regulation" like in D.C. is unconstitutional. Good for them!!

(NOTE WHAT THE DISSENTING OPINION HELD BELOW)

Yet the lead dissent, by Justice John Paul Stevens, did not dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Rather, he wrote, the question was the "scope of that right," which protected militia service but left additional regulation to the judgment of the legislature. The Second Amendment's drafting history revealed the founders' "concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose," something that could be checked by state militias, he wrote, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Scalia does not even believe all gun regulation is unconstitutional.

In a footnote, Justice Scalia noted that the issue known as "incorporation" -- whether federal rights also are binding on state governments -- wasn't before the court, and observed that prior cases "reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." In a 1997 book, he suggested views even more ominous for gun enthusiasts, writing that "properly understood, [the amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

My reading of the decision is that the (1.) 2nd Amendment rights apply to individual citizens which the dissenting opinion did not oppose (no change since 1939 decision), and (2.) gun regulation must be "reasonable" or it is unconstitutional. In effect the ruling said that D.C. and like political areas cannot make unreasonable, sweeping anti gun laws which is great news! Don't expect all gun regulation to disappear!

The historical (hysterical) argument:

The main argument has always been as to whether the Founding Fathers referred to the "keeping and bearing of arms" (1.) as including cannon, armories, all weapons of war needed by the militia to protect itself from the newly formed Federal Standing Army, or (2.) It meant to protect the average farmer's right to keep personal arms for hunting and self defense against Indians, etc.

Who could possible believe the Founding Fathers could have even considered that the Federal Government would try to take away hunting rifles in the 1780's? A ridiculous, but a convenient interpretation today! Remember that even at the writing of the 2nd Amendment there were restrictions as to where a firearm could be kept and born. If a group of men had entered the area where the Constitution was being debated with pistols under their coats do you believe that the Founding Fathers would have said, "No problem, that is their right!" Not a chance!

Big Al
06-27-2008, 07:35 AM
Well then if that is Scalia understanding about the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. THEN HE IS 100% CORRECT! In Fact please everyone take note. This is a D.C. case, Washington D.C. is Federal territory, the ruling can only apply to Federal Territory. In fact all Federal Law only applies to the Territories. My Goodness Mr. D, you have stumbled across what I have been telling people for many years.

You must look to your own State Constitutions for relief. Of course many people have come to believe that we the people are bound by laws written for state government. Many people think that's what being a free people mean, being bound to a piece of paper meant to run a state of federal government. How sad that so many Americans are ignorant of what being free means.

mike in co
06-27-2008, 09:01 AM
You might have misunderstood my layman description of the SC ruling,and its impact.

Mr D and Big AL got it right. Each State decides how they want to regulate the "right to bear arms."

The new ruling opens the door for individuals to challenge their States gun rights legislature. This can be a long drawn out process and very costly.

Here is a link to what we will be seeing a lot of in the near future.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-banjun27,0,1997533.story


well i guess we agree to disagree on each others "wording".
the constitution and the bill of rights apply to the people, reguardless of where the people live. the individual states have the authority to control how this is done within thier state, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.
yes we at each state must now insist that our states are not limiting our (recently re afirmed) gun rights.( i think this is where we agree).

this ruling is monumental. never, in the last 200 years, has the supreme court put in print that the wording of the 2nd ammendment means just what it says.

mike in co

Vibe
06-27-2008, 09:32 AM
If a group of men had entered the area where the Constitution was being debated with pistols under their coats do you believe that the Founding Fathers would have said, "No problem, that is their right!" Not a chance!
I would be extremely surprised to find that some of those very men did not do that very thing. As I sincerely doubt that they were all unarmed - even at the signing.

Big Al
06-27-2008, 10:09 AM
I would be extremely surprised to find that some of those very men did not do that very thing. As I sincerely doubt that they were all unarmed - even at the signing.


As a matter of historical fact that many of the congress men went armed in the house and senate. The historical record is full of examples. Do we need to be reminded that these men were passionate about their views on freedom?

Big Al
06-27-2008, 10:26 AM
well i guess we agree to disagree on each others "wording".
the constitution and the bill of rights apply to the people, reguardless of where the people live. the individual states have the authority to control how this is done within thier state, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.
yes we at each state must now insist that our states are not limiting our (recently re afirmed) gun rights.( i think this is where we agree).

this ruling is monumental. never, in the last 200 years, has the supreme court put in print that the wording of the 2nd ammendment means just what it says.

mike in co

I'm afraid your misunderstanding of the Federal Constitution is incorrect. The amendments to the Constitution is a prohibition on the Federal government in the Territories not to do infringe on these rights. "The Government did not give you these rights" These right were given to you by GOD! Each State or common wealth had to agree before they became a state to agree with the Federal Constitution, there Constitutions had to be in compliance before they were allowed to join the Union of States, as Territories.


These rights were and our common to all men that are free. If a government grants rights to men, then theses men are not free. It is truly simple to understand. Ask yourself this one question? Why did Men, in America say and think of themselves as KINGS? Because when they believed themselves to be KINGS, they knew that KINGS were granted to be KINGS, by GOD. They had no sovereign earthly Man that ruled over them.

xs hedspace
06-27-2008, 10:49 AM
I see that the mayor of Chicago is already whining that this will "not help law enforcement". Hey, wake up, idiot!! None of the Bill of Rights were put there to make it easier for law enforcement. They are there to make it easier for the common citizen. How inconvenient is the Fifth Amendment to law enforcement! Tough crap, Mayor!:D

Old Timer
06-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Today I was presented with the best argument against the mlitia idea I had ever herd.

My friend Tim said, back when the constitution was written, they could not have meant that the militias were the only ones that could possess firearms because people used guns to feed their families.

But it does not matter now anyway:D

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 07:34 PM
In fact all Federal Law only applies to the Territories. My Goodness Mr. D, you have stumbled across what I have been telling people for many years.



Where did you get the idea that Federal law only applies to federal territories and not states???? Break a federal law in the middle of the state you live in and you'll get to unlearn a few things in a federal prison! No state or territory may violate those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

jackie schmidt
06-27-2008, 09:52 PM
Mr. D, it seems some posters, (and probably a lot of citizens), need a simple Civics Lesson.
County law trumps city law
State Law trumps County Law
Federal Law trumps State Law.
The Constitution trumps everything. Period.

The reason people get confused is there are laws that the certain Govenments do not enact,. For instance, Murder, (unless there are provisions set forth in a particular statute), is the States responsibility. The only time The Federal Government gets involved in such cases is through the Presidential Pardon proccess, or through the Courts looking at Constitutional violations.

If ANY government agency, whether it be City, County, State, or Federal, passes a law the is declared contrary to The Constitution, then that law can not stand, and is emmediatly null and void.

Of course, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are, and are not, Constitutional. That is what they just did with the Washington DC Handgun Ban case.......jackie

Big Al
06-27-2008, 10:02 PM
Where did you get the idea that Federal law only applies to federal territories and not states???? Break a federal law in the middle of the state you live in and you'll get to unlearn a few things in a federal prison! No state or territory may violate those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.



The Articles of Confederation and Constitution for the United States of America grant the Congress of the United States power to establish certain courts and to create others by legislation.



The Constitution for the United States of America became effective when if was ratified by nine States on June 21, 1788. Congress enacted the first law on June 1, 1789 when eleven States had ratified the Constitution. The law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States was a law establishing an oath for the territorial government.



We know the oath was a territorial oath because it read: “I will support the Constitution of the United States.” The territorial President signed the legislation as required by Article I Section 7 Clause 2:



Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.



The territorial status of all the federal courts is confirmed when the Judiciary Act of 1789 is examined. Section 2 divides the United States into thirteen districts:



SEC . 2. And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: one to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Maine District;



The date of enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is September 24, 1789. The two districts which are not yet States are Kentucky and Maine. Kentucky is admitted to the Union on June 1, 1791 and Maine is admitted on March 15, 1820.



The Judiciary Act of 1789 is legislation, therefore, all the courts created by legislation are territorial courts since Congress has no legislative power outside federal territory.



All the federal courts are territorial and limited to the federal government and federal territory. This includes the U.S. Supreme Court and certainly all the United States district courts.

Do you need more help? Understanding the nature of jurisdiction is not hard to understand, but it does require that you read the material. This material is put out by the U.S. Government.

A good example would be a memory of where the Feds took Timothy McVeigh to charge him with a Federal crime in Oklahoma. They had to take him to Federal Territory to make the charges. They took him to a military base. This is by law Federal territory. This Federal Territory has not change in scope since 1947 as can be seen in title 28 U.S.C. Within ever state Federal Territory lies, Military bases, National Parks, Land for Federal Court houses. This is often mistakenly thought to be the Geographical boundaries of the U.S., nothing could be further from the truth. I challenge anyone to show me in law that I'm wrong. Your assumption means nothing to me. Show me in law that I'm wrong. I long ago gave up on what I think I know, for what I can prove in law. It makes not one wit of difference to me of what you think you know, prove me wrong!

RStiefel
06-28-2008, 12:28 AM
want to rethink your response. Do you know what a Federal Enclave is? You break a law on a Federal Enclave, and you go to court in the District (federal) court in the county in which it took place. For instance: you break a law at Camp Pendleton and you go to court in San Diego because it is located in San Diego county. McVeigh was moved to a military installation for fear he would be killed elsewhere. He probably would have been.

Big Al
06-28-2008, 05:57 AM
want to rethink your response. Do you know what a Federal Enclave is? You break a law on a Federal Enclave, and you go to court in the District (federal) court in the county in which it took place. For instance: you break a law at Camp Pendleton and you go to court in San Diego because it is located in San Diego county. McVeigh was moved to a military installation for fear he would be killed elsewhere. He probably would have been.


Have it your way, don't bother to read the statutes, just keep up with the WAG's you'll do well. "Let the blind lead the blind" It is so much more simple than reading law.

Thank goodness the justices know how to read the law.

Why do you think Scalia wrote what he did, as Mr. D passed along? Was he confused as others here seem to be?

I have long said that most American have no clue of what it means to be free.

They clamor for "RULERS" over them.

The state run schools and the media have done a wonderful job on insuring a dumbed down America.

Does history of America, scare you my fellow Americans?

Perhaps some more reading will help, read The Northwest Ordinance, does the date of 1787 hold any significance for any of you?

Mr. D
06-28-2008, 07:39 AM
Mr. D, it seems some posters, (and probably a lot of citizens), need a simple Civics Lesson.
County law trumps city law
State Law trumps County Law
Federal Law trumps State Law.
The Constitution trumps everything. Period.

The reason people get confused is there are laws that the certain Govenments do not enact,. For instance, Murder, (unless there are provisions set forth in a particular statute), is the States responsibility. The only time The Federal Government gets involved in such cases is through the Presidential Pardon proccess, or through the Courts looking at Constitutional violations.

If ANY government agency, whether it be City, County, State, or Federal, passes a law the is declared contrary to The Constitution, then that law can not stand, and is emmediatly null and void.

Of course, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are, and are not, Constitutional. That is what they just did with the Washington DC Handgun Ban case.......jackie

You got it right! Good to hear it from a conservative. You know how we liberals lie! :eek: :eek:

Mr. D
06-28-2008, 07:56 AM
There is nothing monumental about the decision at all, very predictable as you will see it came out as I predicted the decision way back without a crystal ball.

(1.) It reaffirms the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment refers to both militia and individual citizen rights since 1939. (No Change)

(2.) It says the local governments have the right to create regulation related to firearms but they must be "reasonable"! (No change!)

(3.) It rule that the D.C. laws were overly sweeping and unreasonable and therefore were against the 2nd Amendment. (Change)

It now gives support for overly sweeping and unreasonable gun regulation to be challenged based on this ruling. Political areas must now clearly meet a "reasonableness" standard rather that just vote in any law they like. A very good thing for liberals and conservatives alike!!

Even Scalia believes local political areas can make their own gun regulations as long as they meet that standard.

Peter
06-28-2008, 08:19 AM
Here's why it was monumental (copy/pasted from another site)

The initial impact [of Heller] is tiny — two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state. But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.

* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a ‘hunting and sportsman’s’ right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the Constitution, not one created by the Constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (to be determined at a later date).


Even if the initial impact is tiny, this ruling is groundbreaking. This is the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of gun rights. The details will have to be fleshed out by future courts and future rulings, but the overall right is established.

Prior to today, there were many who argued that there was no individual right and that guns could be outright banned. After today, the right has been established, and now the long process of defining the limitations on that right begin.

None of our rights are considered absolute by the courts; they all withstand some level of restriction. Now the right to bear arms has been elevated to that position.”

...and all that is to say nothing about the further veracity it gives the ENTIRE bill of rights.

Paul Fielder
06-28-2008, 09:16 AM
Here's why it was monumental (copy/pasted from another site)

The initial impact [of Heller] is tiny — two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state. But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.

* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a ‘hunting and sportsman’s’ right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the Constitution, not one created by the Constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (to be determined at a later date).


Even if the initial impact is tiny, this ruling is groundbreaking. This is the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of gun rights. The details will have to be fleshed out by future courts and future rulings, but the overall right is established.

Prior to today, there were many who argued that there was no individual right and that guns could be outright banned. After today, the right has been established, and now the long process of defining the limitations on that right begin.

None of our rights are considered absolute by the courts; they all withstand some level of restriction. Now the right to bear arms has been elevated to that position.”

...and all that is to say nothing about the further veracity it gives the ENTIRE bill of rights.


....in regards to this being monumental in short order. NRA has already started stirring the pot in San Francisco in regards to their gun ban!! This is going to be great. The anti's heads must be spinning right now:-)

Loving it!!

pf

Vibe
06-28-2008, 09:43 AM
(2.) It says the local governments have the right to create regulation related to firearms but they must be "reasonable"! (No change!)

It now gives support for overly sweeping and unreasonable gun regulation to be challenged based on this ruling. Political areas must now clearly meet a "reasonableness" standard rather that just vote in any law they like. A very good thing for liberals and conservatives alike!!

Even Scalia believes local political areas can make their own gun regulations as long as they meet that standard.
Actually it was rather clear that they did NOT address this issue. Had they been asked to rule on this, one would think, previous precident would have come into play. I found this post itemizing these previous decisions and copy it below.

The Supreme Court has been down the licensing road before:

Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (cannot be compelled to pay a tax in order to exercise a right)

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (waiting period for welfare check is void as it touches upon fundamental right of interstate travel)

Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 538-40 (1945) (registration to exercise a right is unconstitutional)

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968) (government cannot chill exercise of fundamental right)

Minnepolis Star v. Minnesota Commn'r of Rev., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (taxes on fundamental are unconstitutional)

Licensing, taxes and waiting periods are not reasonable restrictions on fundamental, individual rights as licensing, taxes and waiting periods are unconstitutional when it involves one's rights.

Using Miller as the source of the "Miller test" of 2nd Amendment items covered - along with the missing evidence in Miller pertaining to those weapons "of use to the militia" as well as the aforementioned cases. And most of the objectionable firearms infringements would fall.

jackie schmidt
06-28-2008, 09:45 AM
The only reason I mentioned those two is because they are absolute. Regardless of what crime a citizen of any State is convicted, the President can issue him a full and free pardon, based on nothing more than his desire to. There is no appeal to a Presidential Pardon, as it is a Constitutional Duty.
Of course, if a President did show utter irresponsibility in a Pardon, the Congress does have the power to bring articles of impeachment. That is the check on the Presidents power to pardon.
The other, "violations of the Constitution", are also absolute. Once the Supreme Court does issue a ruling that a certain statute is Unconstitutional, then there is no appeal. That Stands.
However, if the court does go too far, The people, through their Legislators and the proccess spelled out in The Constitution, can Amend the Constitution. If something is part of the Constitution, then it cannot be declared "Unconstitutional"
Of course, if the Legislature tires of Supreme Court Justices monkeying around with laws that they pass, then they can always bring articles of impeachment against them.
That is the check..........jackie
.

Vibe
06-28-2008, 09:48 AM
....in regards to this being monumental in short order. NRA has already started stirring the pot in San Francisco in regards to their gun ban!! This is going to be great. The anti's heads must be spinning right now:-)

Loving it!!

pf
The NRA is running behind the efforts of the SAF and Hellers lawyer in challenging Chicagos laws.

RStiefel
06-28-2008, 09:56 AM
A simple definition search of FEDERAL ENCLAVE would help you to understand what Congress has the power to do. Every Piece of Federal land, National forest, Military installation, etc. etc. etc. is in FACT a Federal Enclave. This includes the District of Columbia.

RayfromTX
06-28-2008, 10:19 AM
The opinion that the 2nd confirms an individual right to bear arms was actually unanimous because even the dissenting opinion recognized the individual right. The dissenters were just fearful of the domino effect to striking down a gun control law in a crime ridden urban area.

I guess that is somewhat hopeful. I would have preferred a 7-2 decision. Hey, I'm not greedy.

jackie schmidt
06-28-2008, 10:33 AM
I believe that any crime commited with a deadly weapon, such as a Firearm, should automatically be bumped to "Capitol" status.
That way, when some thug decides to stick agun in someone's face and demand money, he just made himself eligable for the Death Penalty.

Another thing that also confuses me is the concept of charging someone with "attempted murder", if the victim survives. If you intentions were to point a firearm at some one and shoot them, it should be the same whether you were a bad shot, or not.
We need to reward law abiding citizens, and make penalties for criminals even more severe.........jackie

RStiefel
06-28-2008, 10:40 AM
well said.

Mr. D
06-28-2008, 11:24 AM
Here's why it was monumental (copy/pasted from another site)

The initial impact [of Heller] is tiny — two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state. But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.

* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a ‘hunting and sportsman’s’ right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the Constitution, not one created by the Constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (to be determined at a later date).




Wrong, all this is the same as the 1939 SCOTUS decision! All this decision did is to say that regulations as in D.C. must be reasonable or they are unconstitutional! It does have the effect of being a precedent telling cities and states that gun regulation is permittable, but it must be reasonable as D.C.'s was not! Good, but hardly ground breaking! Not even the most conservative Scalia believes that localities cannot create gun regulation. The cities the founding fathers lived in had gun regulations while they lived there! The only remaining argument that creates a split in the Supreme Court is that some members still maintain that the language of the 2nd Amendment and the historical context does not support that the Founding Fathers were speaking about Farmer Browns Deer rifle or shotgun! The 2nd Amendment was required by those Founding Fathers who feared the new federal government might try to disband the local militias and confiscate their armories, canons and weaponry as a means of increasing federal power. The greatly feared a federal standing armed forces which was a new thing due to the Rev. War. Even if you watched HBO's John Adams it explored what a big issue it was for them to dare to establish a federal army that could become the tool of a King like president! Even the word "bear" arms had a military context in those days. It didn't mean walking through a field with a shotgun, It meant using them against an enemy or your own government!

You can't logically take the words of the Constitution out of historical context just because it is convenient for our mutual goal of protecting our right to keep firearms in 2008. It's too bad we can't vote in another Amendment that makes it 100% clear, but it would be a close vote today with all the crime shown on TV!

Vibe
06-28-2008, 02:57 PM
Wrong, all this is the same as the 1939 SCOTUS decision! All this decision did is to say that regulations as in D.C. must be reasonable or they are unconstitutional! It does have the effect of being a precedent telling cities and states that gun regulation is permittable, but it must be reasonable as D.C.'s was not!
Well, no, not quite. The Miller case was distinctly one sided, this one was not.
The opinion deliberately avoided the subject of regulations and mearly noted that the plaintif was not contesting "reasonable" regulation.
Precedent is in effect on licensing of a Right though.
Consider previous SCOTUS rulings.
(Stole this post from another board)


The Supreme Court has been down the licensing road before:

Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (cannot be compelled to pay a tax in order to exercise a right)

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (waiting period for welfare check is void as it touches upon fundamental right of interstate travel)

Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 538-40 (1945) (registration to exercise a right is unconstitutional)

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968) (government cannot chill exercise of fundamental right)

Minnepolis Star v. Minnesota Commn'r of Rev., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (taxes on fundamental are unconstitutional)

Licensing, taxes and waiting periods are not reasonable restrictions on fundamental, individual rights as licensing, taxes and waiting periods are unconstitutional when it involves one's rights.

Mr. D
06-28-2008, 08:51 PM
Vibe,

I read your post, but I don't get how it disagrees with my quote you listed? "All this decision did is to say that regulations as in D.C. must be reasonable or they are unconstitutional! It does have the effect of being a precedent telling cities and states that gun regulation is permittable, but it must be reasonable as D.C.'s was not!"

I agree it is usually a logical error to start with the word "All"! I should have said, (The main thing this decision did is to say that regulations as in D.C. must be reasonable or they are unconstitutional! It does have the effect of being a precedent telling cities and states that gun regulation is permittable, but it must be reasonable as D.C.'s was not!")


So what am I missing? In what way was my quote inaccurate? Educate me as to your point.

jackie schmidt
06-28-2008, 09:38 PM
We can all get caught up in the semantics of what law meant what back when, and what the founding Fathers intended, originol intent, the Federal Papers, Jeffersonian writings, and all other things that have ONE THING IN COMMON. They are NOT the law of the land.
I even hear callers on talk radio quote the Declaration of Independece as a basis for legal standing. But the fact is, the Declaration has no status what so ever as a legal document.
Whether we like it or not, the law of the land is what the Congress, the President, and finally the Supreme court says it is. It can, and does change through time. But, we are very fortunate that our Founding Fathers made the Constitution so difficult to change so that it is not subject to the petty whims of Polititians and the Public.
I consider the Bill of Rights a sacred document. Not sacred as in religion, but sacred in that it is one of the few times where the rights of the People are the first consideration in Government. It might not seem that way at times, but the Document has stood the test of time, and the test of men.
So,when is this Court going to finally take a look at the 10th Amendment. Heck, it does't even have an argueable clause such as was contained in the 2d Amendment, (the militia thing). It says that unless it is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, it is the business of the States and the People, NOT the Federal Government..........jackie

Vibe
06-29-2008, 06:26 AM
Vibe,

I read your post, but I don't get how it disagrees with my quote you listed? "All this decision did is to say that regulations as in D.C. must be reasonable or they are unconstitutional!
Well, because, as Scallia wrote in the majority decision, the question of regulation was NOT addresssed. At all. So this decision actually says nothing about regulation "reasonable" or other wise - only that prohibition is unconstitutional.

Mr. D
06-29-2008, 11:12 AM
Well, because, as Scallia wrote in the majority decision, the question of regulation was NOT addresssed. At all. So this decision actually says nothing about regulation "reasonable" or other wise - only that prohibition is unconstitutional.

If so, I see no difference in meaning than what I said. He may have said it does not address regulation to be political, but the logical conclusion must be that regulation must be reasonable and not simply a broad prohibition without cause which is unconstitutional. Example: If you pass a regulation that no one in D.C. may possess a firearm that is an unconstitutional prohibition. If the regulation states felons may not possess a firearm it is a reasonable regulation and therefore not a unconstitutional prohibition.

Are we on the same page??

Vibe
06-29-2008, 11:29 AM
If so, I see no difference in meaning than what I said. He may have said it does not address regulation to be political, but the logical conclusion must be that regulation must be reasonable and not simply a broad prohibition without cause which is unconstitutional. Example: If you pass a regulation that no one in D.C. may possess a firearm that is an unconstitutional prohibition. If the regulation states felons may not possess a firearm it is a reasonable regulation and therefore not a unconstitutional prohibition.

Are we on the same page??
Not sure. Prohibiting felons from owning or possessing firearms is more a regulation of the felon than the firearm. That exemption is well established. Regulation of the conditions under which a discharge of the firearm (or threat of discharge) is acceptable is one area not covered, and might be appropriate - but what part of "Shall not be infringed" would indicate that an "Except under these circumstances" would be constitutional against the actions of keeping and or carrying?

Mr. D
06-29-2008, 11:58 AM
Not sure. Prohibiting felons from owning or possessing firearms is more a regulation of the felon than the firearm. That exemption is well established. Regulation of the conditions under which a discharge of the firearm (or threat of discharge) is acceptable is one area not covered, and might be appropriate - but what part of "Shall not be infringed" would indicate that an "Except under these circumstances" would be constitutional against the actions of keeping and or carrying?

Your quibbling Vibe!

"Except under these circumstances" is a regulation! You regulate "the felon" may not possess a firearm, not the inanimate object of the firearm. You can't put the firearm in prison!

I can own my hand guns, but I can be reasonable regulated not to conceal them in public without a permit!

I think we're on the same page! Just pretend I'm not a liberal! :D

Vibe
06-29-2008, 01:09 PM
Your quibbling Vibe!
Well yes, yes I am. When discussing with a liberal one has to do so. Else the meaning WILL get twisted to their advantage and no longer represent reality. :D


"Except under these circumstances" is a regulation!
Which is why it's not constitutional to do so.


You regulate "the felon" may not possess a firearm, not the inanimate object of the firearm. You can't put the firearm in prison!
you could put the firearm in prison, but it would of course not have the same effect. :D


I can own my hand guns, but I can be reasonable regulated not to conceal them in public without a permit!
and yet I disagree.


I think we're on the same page! Just pretend I'm not a liberal! :D
I could "pretend" I were on Mars, but the reality of there being flora and fauna about would rapidly convince me otherwise. :D

jackie schmidt
06-29-2008, 05:23 PM
Chris Mathews asked Wayne Lappier of the NRA how many NRA Members would be included in the National Crime Statistics. Of course, he already knew the answer. It is so few, that it does not even register.
Thank God for the NRA. They are forced to be radical, and vigilant, because the anti-gun foes are.
I you are not an NRA Member, you need to be.........jackie

cntryboy1289
06-29-2008, 06:17 PM
I go back to the original, shall not be infringed to ask what about this is not painlfully clear, congress shall pass no laws to infringe upon the right to bear arms. If you want to include service in militias as incumbant to this amendment, where do you think militias draw from? That's right, from us and if you regulate us from having the means and weapons necessary to defend our country, state, city and our house, then you have violated the second amendment which is what the writers of the Constitution intended not to happen. This is directly intended to lessen our authority when it comes to defending our rights.

I say that has already taken place since we can no longer own all weapons of war unless we apply for and pay the taxes to do so. That in itself violates the second amendment. Now can anyone tell me where it says congress has to right to regulate our rights according to their whim?

This occurred because the states decided to allow the Federal government to make this decision because they didn't want to make a decision or be in charge of our rights anymore. This goes back to drugs as well as firearms when the states were weak and gave away their authority to the Fed and should never have been allowed. Since then we have to apply for a license to own automatic weapons which is in direct conflict with the second amendment, but we have allowed it to go on since the 30's.

When are we going to take back our rights????

Phil Deese
06-29-2008, 08:14 PM
It's sad, but anytime some stands-up for what is right they get labeled as radical, extremist, racist, or mean spirited. We do need to commend Mr. Heller for his stand. He has just become famous for not compromising on his beliefs.......his name will be forever used anytime the second amendment is discussed in this country. If we all had the fortitude to make a stand for what we believe in the muslims, the race baiters, the ACLU and many other corrupt organizations would be irrelevant in our society!!

RStiefel
06-29-2008, 08:54 PM
But the majority of (at least this group) people don't have enough will to make a stand. My post about cutting fuel consumption is a very good example. Like I said there, there is a large group complaining, but no one willing to stand up and help change it. Look what that single security guard did virtually by himself regarding the 2nd amendment. Imagine what WE could accomplish if WE ALL stood our ground to force a change!!!!!

Mr. D
06-30-2008, 03:37 AM
Vibr,

I like your sense of humor! At least we have that in common! :D

Mr. D
06-30-2008, 03:42 AM
It's sad, but anytime some stands-up for what is right they get labeled as radical, extremist, racist, or mean spirited. We do need to commend Mr. Heller for his stand. He has just become famous for not compromising on his beliefs.......his name will be forever used anytime the second amendment is discussed in this country. If we all had the fortitude to make a stand for what we believe in the muslims, the race baiters, the ACLU and many other corrupt organizations would be irrelevant in our society!!

You're off the deep end again! Who with half a brain that we care about called Mr. Heller "radical, extremist, racist, or mean spirited"? As a terrible, idiotic liberal I salute him! Cool your jets!

Mr. D
06-30-2008, 03:51 AM
Chris Mathews asked Wayne Lappier of the NRA how many NRA Members would be included in the National Crime Statistics. Of course, he already knew the answer. It is so few, that it does not even register.
Thank God for the NRA. They are forced to be radical, and vigilant, because the anti-gun foes are.
I you are not an NRA Member, you need to be.........jackie

I am a member of the NRA! I am also a member of my local private shooting range that hosts Benchrest Matches, as well as just about every other type of shooting competition. There are only two liberals that are members and I am both of them, but the range you could mistake me for a regular human being! I just come to test handloads, etc. I save my politics for you guy that can't shoot me! All the guys like Phil are carrying guns!

I only get liberal when someone at a meeting attacks a person they suspect might not be good enough to be a member because they are not ultra conservative wearing I love Reagan buttons. The president challenged a criminal attorney to declare if he was a prosecutor or a defense attorney! Until we have to wear NAZI armbands or join the Taliban that's not going to get past me in America! Other than that, I keep my mouth shut at the range! Really! No really I do! No, I do really! I meant like really I do!

Oh, never mind! :D :D

Flash The Cash
07-01-2008, 10:38 AM
...the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...--Judge Activist Antonin Scalia in Heller v. D. C.

Scalia gutted the Second Amendment. I don't see that as something to cheer about.