Matt Vanderpan
Active member
The Supreme Court has ruled individuals have right to own guns, striking down a DC handgun ban
5-4 Supreme Court rules infavor of Gun Ownership
- Thread starter Matt Vanderpan
- Start date
Matt Vanderpan
Active member
I am so excited right now. Though I will admit... I was a bit worried on how they may rule. Many on the coasts and big cities may disagree but this was a step in the right direction. This is the first time since ratification of the bill of rights in 1791 that the Court has had a conclusive and definitive interpretation of the second amendment. Heck I may have to find a shirt that says.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
God Bless America!!!
God Bless America!!!
Mark W
Well-known member
You have to read the dissenting opinion - this is the scary part that some of the justices believe what they wrote (the 4 of the 5-4 decision). Judge Stevens is one scary person if he truly believes his own dissenting opinion.
Thus the reason to get out and vote. While one may have to hold one's nose while voting this year, there are probably 2 Supreme court retirements coming within the next few (1-8 years) and depending upon who is in office, can drastically change the make up of the court.
My opinion.
Here is a link to the decision
http://www.scotusblog.com/...s/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Here is the Buckeye Firearms orginal brief; Heller vs the District of Columbia (wow)
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/...earms_Foundation.pdf
Mark W
Thus the reason to get out and vote. While one may have to hold one's nose while voting this year, there are probably 2 Supreme court retirements coming within the next few (1-8 years) and depending upon who is in office, can drastically change the make up of the court.
My opinion.
Here is a link to the decision
http://www.scotusblog.com/...s/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Here is the Buckeye Firearms orginal brief; Heller vs the District of Columbia (wow)
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/...earms_Foundation.pdf
Mark W
Last edited:
Dave Parks
Well-known member
You are correct, if Obama gets in you can bet there will be a new Judge appointed within a year and you can bet it won't be the kind we need. 5-4 is scary enough, but it could quickly change and the current ruling would be struck down in a hurry.
If we don't let our votes be heard this Fall it will be a sorry situation for all of us. We have seen all the crazy laws put on the ballots in California lately and that State has a Republican Governor, yet he can't do much (or won't) about it.
I have lived through 65 years of elections and this one is the most crucial that I can remember. Life as we know it is on the line this election, get out and vote!
Dave
If we don't let our votes be heard this Fall it will be a sorry situation for all of us. We have seen all the crazy laws put on the ballots in California lately and that State has a Republican Governor, yet he can't do much (or won't) about it.
I have lived through 65 years of elections and this one is the most crucial that I can remember. Life as we know it is on the line this election, get out and vote!
Dave
Jim...The RFA,(Recreational Fishing Alliance)????????????????? OR,"Radio Free Asia" 5 to 4 is not the unanimous decision it should have been.The DC Mayor has already said,
"that all guns will have to be registered,and semi-autos are banned".I believe he'll have many law suits now,which he,and many other cities should have.
NOW IF WE CAN JUST GET THE NEWS TALKING HEADS TO STOP USING THE TERM "TARMAC".UGA!
"that all guns will have to be registered,and semi-autos are banned".I believe he'll have many law suits now,which he,and many other cities should have.
NOW IF WE CAN JUST GET THE NEWS TALKING HEADS TO STOP USING THE TERM "TARMAC".UGA!
Lee Harker
Well-known member
I have a cynical view on this. The ruling said "Federal Government". It really changed nothing but I hope because of it, it will get more suits to the Supreme Court on the matter. It's always been illegal for a felon to TOUCH a gun but the powers that be always seem to take the easy way out and handcuff the honest. Maybe we need Obama to win and shit hit the fan to get people off their asses and do something about the sorry state of the Union.
Mark W
Well-known member
and I am not proud of it by any means. I figure vote in an ultra liberal left winger, with both the House and Senate controlled by the left and watch the Country go down in flames. Maybe that will wake the country up and radical change occur, not the "Change" Obama is calling for.
Should McCain get elected, he is another Bill Clinton in politcal philosophy (IMO) and not a real Republican (although I did like his comments on the court's decision that at the same time slammed Obama) and he will just get blamed by the Dem's for everything that is wrong with the country. If we are going to get McCain, might as well make it Obama and really watch things go to hell.
And no need to be cynical Lee, by saying Federal Governement, this means that States can't make individual laws that go against the Federal laws which this decision says allows one to own a gun - it is a right. Just like Roe verses Wade, it is an amendment to the Constitution that says abortion is a right and that States can't make laws that make abortion illegal. Maybe a poor example but similar in scope I believe.
I need a drink.....
Mark W
Should McCain get elected, he is another Bill Clinton in politcal philosophy (IMO) and not a real Republican (although I did like his comments on the court's decision that at the same time slammed Obama) and he will just get blamed by the Dem's for everything that is wrong with the country. If we are going to get McCain, might as well make it Obama and really watch things go to hell.
And no need to be cynical Lee, by saying Federal Governement, this means that States can't make individual laws that go against the Federal laws which this decision says allows one to own a gun - it is a right. Just like Roe verses Wade, it is an amendment to the Constitution that says abortion is a right and that States can't make laws that make abortion illegal. Maybe a poor example but similar in scope I believe.
I need a drink.....
Mark W
Last edited:
Matt Vanderpan
Active member
I cant imagine living in a place where people are so stupid as to believe garbage like this. Chicago has had a Gun ban since '82 yet sill sees a 13% rise in murder this yr, of which 68% were perpetrated with a gun?? Seems to be working well
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Chicago Tribune
June 27, 2008
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words “keep and bear arms.”
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
They have claimed, Stevens wrote, “a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries.”
•••
It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policymaking on gun control.
The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment “is not unlimited.” So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It did not stipulate what weapons are not “dangerous.”
Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.
We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city.
But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
•••
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.
Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, “forget about it.”
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Chicago Tribune
June 27, 2008
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words “keep and bear arms.”
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
They have claimed, Stevens wrote, “a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries.”
•••
It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policymaking on gun control.
The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment “is not unlimited.” So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It did not stipulate what weapons are not “dangerous.”
Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.
We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city.
But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
•••
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.
Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, “forget about it.”