R
RStiefel
Guest
Well said Jackie
well said.
well said.
M
Mr. D
Guest
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
22 Epperson Cricket
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)
M
Mr. D
Guest
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
jackie schmidt
New member
Semantics
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
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
22 Epperson Cricket
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.
M
Mr. D
Guest
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??
Last edited by a moderator:
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
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?
Last edited:
M
Mr. D
Guest
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!
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
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.
Which is why it's not constitutional to do so.
you could put the firearm in prison, but it would of course not have the same effect.
and yet I disagree.
I could "pretend" I were on Mars, but the reality of there being flora and fauna about would rapidly convince me otherwise.I think we're on the same page! Just pretend I'm not a liberal!
jackie schmidt
New member
NRA Memebers
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
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
C
cntryboy1289
Guest
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????
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????
P
Phil Deese
Guest
Glenn............................................. ...............
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!!
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!!
Last edited by a moderator:
R
RStiefel
Guest
How true Phil
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
M
Mr. D
Guest
Vibr,
I like your sense of humor! At least we have that in common!
I like your sense of humor! At least we have that in common!
M
Mr. D
Guest
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!
M
Mr. D
Guest
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!
Last edited by a moderator:
F
Flash The Cash
Guest
...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.