Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/26/2008 2:02:58 PM EDT
It's a possible wolf in sheeps clothing...

jbsforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3

I urge you read JBS-AlanScholl's comments quoting Steve Bonta...
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 7:18:11 PM EDT
The next few months and this election will still have major effects. Obama seems to think of the 2nd amendment as a right to hunt and the 5-4 decision isn't as big of a margin as there should have been. Why not a 9-0 vote?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 7:41:19 PM EDT

"I'm sure you've heard about the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling today on the Second Amendment. LewRockwell.com, etc., are in full celebration mode, for example. However, the majority decision (much of which I've already read) effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out, but you heard it here first. First of all, the decision makes explicit (pp. 54-55, and also in the intro) that the Supremes do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as in violation of the Second Amendment; nor do they oppose "laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Furthermore, after arguing earlier in the decision that the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Alito et al say this (p. 56): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [the case under discussion] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like --may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the eighteenth century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.... but the fact that modern development have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Translation: you still can't own the good stuff, only now, laws banning or severely limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision.
A couple of other thoughts: Early in the document, the majority correctly note that the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one. Yet only a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment that informs the rest of the decision, they affirm that the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. And while we're at it, a second very imnportant semantic point whihc sixty pages of quodlibetical argumentation ignores entirely: the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in point of fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe." Infringement, of course, means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Supremes see the DC handgun ban as a clear violation, but have no problem with myriads of other infringements on the right, as the document makes explicit.
Scott, you may recall that I predicted this outcome several months back. In the short run, gun owners will rejoice, until it dawns on everybody what this decision really means. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its pristinity but the "right" of government to infringe on the 2nd Amendment pretty much at its pleasure, as long as it does not resort to blanket firearms bans and outright confiscation of entire classes of weapons that haven't been banned already. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capaity shotguns, RPGs and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rathers than weakens such laws.

Please forward this email to any who might be interested.
Second Amendment, RIP!"
-Steve Bonta -


Link Posted: 6/26/2008 7:46:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidK:
It's a possible wolf in sheeps clothing...

jbsforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3

I urge you read JBS-AlanScholl's comments quoting Steve Bonta...


I read his comments but that's a pretty negative view that really isn't based in facts. I've read a good amount of Scalias opinion and really with the exception of the comment about longstanding laws on bans of carrying in schools and government buildings I don't have a problem with it. If this guy wants to fight for nutcases and violent felons to have a right to own a gun he's not going to have to many allies in that fight. I'm ok with giving a former nutcase their rights back. But if you've been deemed a nutcase (by a valid court and valid professionals - which is the major issue there) then you shouldn't be around a firearm, a car, or a ballot box.

The rest of the opinion was saying all other issues are not within the scope of the decision and were not part of the question presented to the court in this case. Did we in the war? Fuck no. But we did win a BIG battle. The momentum is on our side and we need to use it. Getting pissy over words in an opinion is simply a waste of time.

I do agree with him that 5 out of 9 isn't good. That's a sure sign of sickness in our country. But for the people who voted for Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter that isn't big news. This country is full of communists in the Democrat party and neo con fascists in the Republican party. So it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the serious problems this country faces that it was a 5 to 4 decision.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 7:56:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2008 8:00:27 PM EDT by 45Patriot]
AlanScholl


"...Also, the language I'd already seen makes it sound like the Supereme Court has GIVEN us a right, rather than simply confirming that a God Given Right was guaranteed clearly and obviously, in the 2nd Amendment..."



Scalia Pg 19

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . .”


Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:03:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2008 8:05:03 PM EDT by 45Patriot]

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By DavidK:
It's a possible wolf in sheeps clothing...

jbsforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3

I urge you read JBS-AlanScholl's comments quoting Steve Bonta...


I read his comments but that's a pretty negative view that really isn't based in facts.

snip




Agreed!
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:05:40 PM EDT
My summary of Scalia's opinion:

Opinion: "The Second Amendment is an individual right, not related to service in a militia. We find that the DC ban is an unconstitutional infringement of that right."

Dicta (not necessary to the opinion, just digressing): "That doesn't mean that governments can't regulate the hell out of the individual right, until it exists only in theory, and not in practice. Outside the house? Ban it. Carrying concealed? Ban it. Carrying openly? Ban it. 'Sensitive locations' like schools or public buildings (or anywhere else the government determines is 'sensitive,' like your car, or restaurants, or city parks, or within 20 miles of any school or public building)? Go ahead and ban it. Reasonable regulations, like a $1,000 annual permit fee? Knock yourself out."

(Now that DC has to issue Heller a permit (a permit to exercise an individual right!) how much do you think they will charge him for the permit, and what do you think will be the requirements to qualify?)

"Machine guns? OK to ban them, because they are not in common use, because they were banned when they were in common use. So, if you ban guns that are in common use (semi-automatic pistols? centerfire handguns? any rifle bullet that will penetrate Kevlar?), in a few years it will be OK, because then they won't be in common use.

"Enjoy your 'victory,' suckers!"

From the opinion:
2. Like most rights, 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: For example, concealed

weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

arms.

They were only required to rule on what was before them. Mentioning concealed weapons and "sensitive places" is gratuitous, not essential to the question before them. Of all the things they could have said (or better, not said), this was the worst. They could have simply not mentioned those things (which would have been the proper thing to do). If they felt like digressing, they could have said, "We do not address whether the individual rights protected by the 2A extend to CW and 'sensitive places'" (gag). Or they could have said, "Whether the individual rights extend outside the home as well, and whether prohibitions against CW and carrying in "sensitive places" violate those rights, is beyond the scope of this opinion, but this court will examine such infringements suspiciously, to determine if they are mere regulations, or pretexts for infringing on individual rights in the guise of permissible regulation." This is the result we feared: "Yes, it's an individual right, but the government can regulate it into non-existence."

We got hosed.

Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:14:03 PM EDT
Wow I see I am not the only one that read this. Here is the comments I posted on the Hometown forum which mirrors those that have been said here:


River Rat,

Thanks for posting the link to the decision brief. I have read about the first 12 pages of 157. I won't read the whole thing, but what I read is an interesting dilemma and a great double-edge sword. It is funny everyone is jumping on the fact that they ruled it in favor of an individuals right over a collective right. Huge victory however, everyone has missed the rest of the brief which is a huge blow to us. First, it was ruled 5-4, not a good decision mark, as a 5-4 ruling does not set a good precedent, you need an overwhelming majority for that, read: they can re-challenge this decision in the future because of so many dissenting judges. So Supreme Court justice pick is still important and we got lucky that Chief Justice Roberts was picked by Dubbya as he broke the tie. Second of all, did anyone read the rest of the brief, it sounds very bad, here is parphrasing:

- 2nd Amendment only allows weapons of common use of the time. What happens when they ban everything but your 1-shot shotgun and it stays around long enough before challanged to go against a common weapon of the time?

-2nd Amendment is not limitless. It does not allow you to possess or use whatever you want, whenever you want. Say what? We are screwed with further bans as they are not unconstitional.

-2A does not say you can not regulate or REGISTER weapons. Screwed again.

-2A does not affect carry and conceal prohibit laws. Carry can be prohibited in schools and government buildings along with other 'sensitive' areas.

So you see we won the battle but might have lost the war and I am on only page 12 of the brief. I think people have not fully realized that this decision affected and commented on alot of different laws and was not in our favor overall. My opinion and hopefully, someone else that READ the brief can further comment on these things I have found so far. Maybe I am looking into it too far, but I think not.


Be afraid, very afraid of what comes next! This was not a good ruling for the 2A as it could have been.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:24:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2008 8:48:08 PM EDT by 45Patriot]

Originally Posted By ceadmin:
Wow I see I am not the only one that read this. Here is the comments I posted on the Hometown forum which mirrors those that have been said here:


River Rat,

Thanks for posting the link to the decision brief. I have read about the first 12 pages of 157. I won't read the whole thing, but what I read is an interesting dilemma and a great double-edge sword. It is funny everyone is jumping on the fact that they ruled it in favor of an individuals right over a collective right. Huge victory however, everyone has missed the rest of the brief which is a huge blow to us. First, it was ruled 5-4, not a good decision mark, as a 5-4 ruling does not set a good precedent, you need an overwhelming majority for that, read: they can re-challenge this decision in the future because of so many dissenting judges. So Supreme Court justice pick is still important and we got lucky that Chief Justice Roberts was picked by Dubbya as he broke the tie. Second of all, did anyone read the rest of the brief, it sounds very bad, here is parphrasing:

- 2nd Amendment only allows weapons of common use of the time. What happens when they ban everything but your 1-shot shotgun and it stays around long enough before challanged to go against a common weapon of the time?

-2nd Amendment is not limitless. It does not allow you to possess or use whatever you want, whenever you want. Say what? We are screwed with further bans as they are not unconstitional.

-2A does not say you can not regulate or REGISTER weapons. Screwed again.

-2A does not affect carry and conceal prohibit laws. Carry can be prohibited in schools and government buildings along with other 'sensitive' areas.

So you see we won the battle but might have lost the war and I am on only page 12 of the brief. I think people have not fully realized that this decision affected and commented on alot of different laws and was not in our favor overall. My opinion and hopefully, someone else that READ the brief can further comment on these things I have found so far. Maybe I am looking into it too far, but I think not.


Be afraid, very afraid of what comes next! This was not a good ruling for the 2A as it could have been.



-They overturned a three decade long ban. Not counting police issue, handguns are not in common-use in DC because of the de facto ban. Further, they compared the 2A to the 1A, articulating that, just as TV/internet is protected under the first, the 2A isn't bound by 1776 technology standards.

-The 2A is not an absolute right. There are no absolute rights. Scientifically, free means absence of restraint. The purpose of government is to provide restraint, as defined by our Constitution. This case meant to address anything other than the specifics involved. In my opinion, Scalia went above and beyond in our favor.

-This case was not a test against registration, and therefore Scalia specifically wrote that they wouldn't address the registration issue. Heller was suing because his application was turned down without cause creating a de facto ban on handguns; not because he had to apply, per se.

-Again, such issues were not truly relevant. The SCOTUS already ruled against federal laws prohibiting carrying within a defined distance from schools. The 2A has not been incorporated, and, therefore, it will take additional suits to clarify such issues.


Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:33:44 PM EDT
Let's look at the facts shall we? Anyone who was expecting the court to answer every single "question" about the 2nd Amendment was doomed to be disappointed by this ruling. Here is the question the court was asked:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

They were not asked about concealed carry. They were not asked about the licensing in DC. They were not asked about full auto's, or anything else for that matter. We got the right answer for the two questions that were asked. We also got the court to acknowledge the "collectivist" theory is bullshit. Other than that, everything else was opinion and isn't law.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 8:54:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2008 9:00:20 PM EDT by M-Dub]

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:

From the opinion:
2. Like most rights, 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: For example, concealed

weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

arms.



It says, "The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt". It does NOT say, "These regulations have passed Constitutional muster and are Constitutional". That was not the question before the court.

It was Scalia's way of saying that the ruling is not meant to suddenly render ALL gun-related laws null and void. That was not their intention, and if you expected the SC to issue a complete referendum vacating and remanding all laws related to firearms, then you were a fool.

The SC made as strong a 2A statement as it could without actively taking on the question of whether other laws are Constitutional or not. That remains to be decided another day. Guns are a BIG deal, and everyone expected them to puss out as much as possible. Instead, despite some degree of "pussing out", they DID take a strong pro-2A stance.

You're right that this ruling did not "win the war" for us. But it did open a crack in the anti-gun propaganda. Now more than ever, we need to keep pushing through that crack until it erodes into a gaping hole through which "liberty" can flow.

The ruling does this (and this is a lot):

-Overturns the DC gun ban and lock-up requirement

-Firmly establishes the 2nd as an individual and pre-existing right

-Firmly establishes self-defense as protected under 2A

-Nothing more. It denies any intention to strike down CCW laws, AWBs, etc, in effect leaving them for another day, another case. Which is what everyone EXPECTED...a narrow ruling applying specifically to the case at-hand. But it does NOT AFFIRM those laws...just states that they COULD potentially be Constitutional or unConstitutional, and the SC is intentionally "ducking" that question.


It wasn't an all-out victory, no. The ATF wasn't disbanded, nor the NFA remanded, nor universal CCW implemented. You won't be buying M60s in Home Depot any time soon. And the Dems in Congress and the Black Osama and all the other politicians who think they're better than you will still try to infringe on your rights.

But it sets a STRONG precedent and lays a LOT of groundwork. In a time when us gun owners are fighting to hold the line, Scalia and the Court called us in some air support.

Now we have to push forward.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 9:34:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M-Dub:
But it sets a STRONG precedent and lays a LOT of groundwork. In a time when us gun owners are fighting to hold the line, Scalia and the Court called us in some air support.

Now we have to push forward.


+1

Couldn't agree more. I think we got the most we could realistically expect to get. WE have the momentum, not the anti's. That is what counts. Everyone here has to realize that half the country is sick. Their a bunch of left wing nuts or at least they vote for left wing nuts. We also have some serious sickness in the Republican party. Just to get what we got is fuckin amazing in itself! The anti's got kicked to the ground today. We need to start kicking as hard as we can while their down.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 10:03:01 PM EDT
Please signup on JBSForum.org and post these same comments/discussion, you'll get well-informed opinions and commentary on these subjects.
Link Posted: 6/26/2008 10:27:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidK:
Please signup on JBSForum.org and post these same comments/discussion, you'll get well-informed opinions and commentary on these subjects.


Why? So I can argue with a bunch of people who wanted the Supreme Court to settle every single 2nd Amendment issue all in once case? Get real. You brought up the subject. If you want them to come here feel free. I have nothing against the John Birch Society. In fact I can assure you I agree with them far more of the time than I agree with this neo con infested board. But we have to realize you don't win a war that's been going on since the beginning of time all in one day with one court case. We all get pissed off when a court goes beyond it's bounds and rules on stuff that was not presented to it. We can't expect it to be ok in this case and not in all other cases. The court ruled on the issues presented to it, and ruled very strongly in our favor. Then they even hinted in the opinions that we could challenge other laws. Why can't you understand this is not some "Wolf in sheeps clothing" conspiracy theory?
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 4:43:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2008 4:44:36 AM EDT by M-Dub]

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:
WE have the momentum, not the anti's. That is what counts.


That's the main thing this case gave us. How often do you see gun laws EVER come off the books once implemented? It's a rarity, because no one wants to take a gun law off the books and have to face the screaming mothers of dead children. ANY gun law struck down under the provisions of the 2nd Amendment is a victory, I don't care HOW many others still stand. Especially one like the DC ban, which flew in the face of everything we as Americans believe.

It was not the Court's place within the scope of this trial to render ALL gun laws null and void. That may be "the eventual goal", but the best they could do, without inciting utter chaos, is set precedent.

The DC gun ban is unConstitutional. That's all the case decided. And that's a step in the right direction.




Everyone here has to realize that half the country is sick. Their a bunch of left wing nuts or at least they vote for left wing nuts. We also have some serious sickness in the Republican party. Just to get what we got is fuckin amazing in itself! The anti's got kicked to the ground today. We need to start kicking as hard as we can while their down.


Exactly. Yesterday was a day of celebration, yes, but the war continues today.

This can only help with the upcoming Presidential election. Even the high-and-mighty Barack Obama was left stammering and trying to sidestep the question of Constitutional rights, with some vague lip-service to "right to bear arms". People will see this ruling and see the kind of agenda-driven corruption that's infiltrated all branches of government.

Justice was done yesterday...but there is much more justice to be done. If nothing short of utter victory will please you, then you will remain in despair.

As I said in my previous post, all civilizations throughout history HAVE a history of "rights" conflicts between the governors and the governed. The saving grace of America is that we can elect the governors from the governed.

Link Posted: 6/27/2008 6:06:24 AM EDT
We also have to keep in mind that SCOTUS judges being appointed is still an all important issue to be taken into account, just look at the close 5-4 victory, I wish it was at least 7-2.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 6:28:29 AM EDT
Just remember, folks, that if O'Connor was still there instead of Roberts, this one would have gone the other way, and we would have been really screwed. Justice Roberts is the biggest reason I am thankful that Bush is president, not Kerry.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 7:35:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JustSomeDude:
Just remember, folks, that if O'Connor was still there instead of Roberts, this one would have gone the other way, and we would have been really screwed. Justice Roberts is the biggest reason I am thankful that Bush is president, not Kerry.


Amen. Even a 6-3 ruling would have made me feel a little better. The 5-4 means we may have issues when it comes time to write in the details because it was probably important to reign in the opinion to keep Kennedy with the majority.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 4:09:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By JustSomeDude:
Just remember, folks, that if O'Connor was still there instead of Roberts, this one would have gone the other way, and we would have been really screwed. Justice Roberts is the biggest reason I am thankful that Bush is president, not Kerry.


Amen. Even a 6-3 ruling would have made me feel a little better. The 5-4 means we may have issues when it comes time to write in the details because it was probably important to reign in the opinion to keep Kennedy with the majority.


I believe you are both right. I think Jorge Bush's second term has been a complete and total disaster for Conservatives and a total let down with the exception of Alito and Roberts. But let us not forget, we had to force Jorge to give us Roberts. Jorge wanted to give us someone completely unproven before. With the track record of Bush Sr's Supreme Court nominee we had no reason to trust Jorge on this like he wanted us to.

Due to this case being so close, I think I may just have to give up on the protest vote and vote for Juan McCain. He is nothing more than Jorge Bush III. But I guess as long as the country is hell bent on committing national suicide brought on by both the Socialist Democrats and the Fascist Neo Con's in the Republicrat party, I might as well have my guns.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 4:16:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:
With the track record of Bush Sr's Supreme Court nominee we had no reason to trust Jorge on this like he wanted us to.

Thomas?
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 5:10:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:
With the track record of Bush Sr's Supreme Court nominee we had no reason to trust Jorge on this like he wanted us to.

Thomas?


I was talking about Souter. Thomas is great.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 6:43:15 PM EDT

River Rat,

. First, it was ruled 5-4, not a good decision mark, as a 5-4 ruling does not set a good precedent, you need an overwhelming majority for that, read: they can re-challenge this decision in the future because of so many dissenting judges. So Supreme Court justice pick is still important

Wait,im confused..i thought once the SCOTUS rules on something,thats that,it cannot be brought back up...Am i wrong? Trying to remember social studies class at the moment
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 6:52:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2008 7:28:06 PM EDT by Milquetoast]

Originally Posted By M-Dub:
It says, "The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt". It does NOT say, "These regulations have passed Constitutional muster and are Constitutional". That was not the question before the court.

Precisely. That was not the question before the court. There was no reason for Scalia to mention it. Nobody asked the Court anything about all those other things. It was not necessary to say anything. They could have just answered the question (DC ban is unconstitutional).

It was Scalia's way of saying that the ruling is not meant to suddenly render ALL gun-related laws null and void. That was not their intention, and if you expected the SC to issue a complete referendum vacating and remanding all laws related to firearms, then you were a fool.

Name-calling is bad manners. You should apologize. I expected no such thing. I expected the court to answer the question presented, not to raise other, unasked questions, not to open other cans of worms.

The SC made as strong a 2A statement as it could without actively taking on the question of whether other laws are Constitutional or not. That remains to be decided another day. Scalia could have written that. Instead of writing "This should not cast doubt on," he could have written, "This decision does not address other issues; those remain to be decided another day." Guns are a BIG deal, and everyone expected them to puss out as much as possible. Instead, despite some degree of "pussing out", they DID take a strong pro-2A stance.

You're right that this ruling did not "win the war" for us. But it did open a crack in the anti-gun propaganda. Now more than ever, we need to keep pushing through that crack until it erodes into a gaping hole through which "liberty" can flow. Do you imagine I disagree?

The ruling does this (and this is a lot):

-Overturns the DC gun ban and lock-up requirement

-Firmly establishes the 2nd as an individual and pre-existing right

-Firmly establishes self-defense as protected under 2A

-Nothing more. It denies any intention to strike down CCW laws, AWBs, etc, in effect leaving them for another day, another case. Which is what everyone EXPECTED...a narrow ruling applying specifically to the case at-hand. But it does NOT AFFIRM those laws...just states that they COULD potentially be Constitutional or unConstitutional, and the SC is intentionally "ducking" that question.

One thing more: it also invites and encourages legislators not to doubt that they can regulate, restrict, and infringe in all the areas helpfully suggested.


It wasn't an all-out victory, no. The ATF wasn't disbanded, nor the NFA remanded, nor universal CCW implemented. You won't be buying M60s in Home Depot any time soon. And the Dems in Congress and the Black Osama and all the other politicians who think they're better than you will still try to infringe on your rights.

But it sets a STRONG precedent and lays a LOT of groundwork. In a time when us gun owners are fighting to hold the line, Scalia and the Court called us in some air support.

Now we have to push forward.
Link Posted: 6/27/2008 7:06:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2008 7:07:01 PM EDT by MOS11C]

Originally Posted By M-Dub:
Now we have to push forward.


I've never stopped pushing.
I make my business pushing my opinion against ANY measure of more gun control or anti-2nd in places that I have even never heard of.

For me it doesn't "start" in the highest court but it "continues" in the small city council or county commission that with a strike of a pen can impose anti-2A bullcrap to their municipalities.

Well, I bother the crap out of our State Reps and Senators too.

Takes me less time to email these folks than posting in any forum.
Good thing is that I can now ALSO include the SCOTUS ruling as a blurp in my comments.
Link Posted: 6/28/2008 1:18:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2008 1:19:16 PM EDT by 3rdpig]
That piece brings the term "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" an entirely new meaning. I've never seen such defeatism in my life. Sure, Scalia's intent was to destroy the 2A, or he's just too stoopid to know what he's really done. Sure, tell me another one.
Link Posted: 6/29/2008 1:20:25 AM EDT


Sky Is Falling, Sky is FALLING!!! OH TEH NOES!!!

Now, back to reality...

What Heller did was declare the 2A to be an individual right, strike down the DC pistol ban, and define the 2A right in a way that intentionally preserves the 2 major Federal laws that regulate firearms - the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act - on the logic that these two laws don't actually 'infringe'...

That is why we get language about 'laws regulating commercial sale' and 'laws prohibiting ownership by felons & the mentally incompetant' - to preserve the FFL system & related....

Which isn't much of an issue anyway... Not being able to buy guns direct-to-my-mailbox from www.walmart.com is NOT disrupting my right to keep and bear arms in any practical sense, and I'm not going to look the Heller gift horse in the mouth because it leaves this in place...

The same goes for NFA34... $200 tax, and a stamp... BFD... I still get to own all kinds of interesting & exotic weapons - including several varieties that are logically NOT covered by the 2A, but no one gives a rats ass about trying to ban (such as, let's say, a 75mm pack howitzer... Perfectly legal... Just pay your tax)...
Link Posted: 6/29/2008 10:35:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blend708:
River Rat,

. First, it was ruled 5-4, not a good decision mark, as a 5-4 ruling does not set a good precedent, you need an overwhelming majority for that, read: they can re-challenge this decision in the future because of so many dissenting judges. So Supreme Court justice pick is still important

Wait,im confused..i thought once the SCOTUS rules on something,thats that,it cannot be brought back up...Am i wrong? Trying to remember social studies class at the moment


'STARE DECISIS' (to stand by that which is decided) is a big deal at the Supreme Court level.
The court does everything it can to avoid overturning itself at any point.
This is part of the reason Scalia detailed previous 2nd amendment cases and tried to show how this ruling was consistent with the older ones.

He pointed out that Miller did not rule on the right to own the sawed off shotgun, but that the court had no information that it was a 'militia weapon.'

The right of Miller to keep and bear a weapon was NOT an issue.

Link Posted: 6/29/2008 4:13:19 PM EDT


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.
Link Posted: 6/29/2008 4:26:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By JustSomeDude:
Just remember, folks, that if O'Connor was still there instead of Roberts, this one would have gone the other way, and we would have been really screwed. Justice Roberts is the biggest reason I am thankful that Bush is president, not Kerry.


Amen. Even a 6-3 ruling would have made me feel a little better. The 5-4 means we may have issues when it comes time to write in the details because it was probably important to reign in the opinion to keep Kennedy with the majority.


I believe you are both right. I think Jorge Bush's second term has been a complete and total disaster for Conservatives and a total let down with the exception of Alito and Roberts. But let us not forget, we had to force Jorge to give us Roberts. Jorge wanted to give us someone completely unproven before. With the track record of Bush Sr's Supreme Court nominee we had no reason to trust Jorge on this like he wanted us to.

Due to this case being so close, I think I may just have to give up on the protest vote and vote for Juan McCain. He is nothing more than Jorge Bush III. But I guess as long as the country is hell bent on committing national suicide brought on by both the Socialist Democrats and the Fascist Neo Con's in the Republicrat party, I might as well have my guns.
I am so happy to hear that and I know how hard that was to say.
Link Posted: 6/30/2008 5:15:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2008 5:16:41 PM EDT by OddballAZ]

Originally Posted By s32:


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.


I fully agree.

Their either mad because they had extremely unrealistic expectations about what the case was about, or they have the same problem as the gun grabbers which is they are unable to read English. The ruling did not say things like gun registration was ok. It simply said it didn't address any of those other issues.
Link Posted: 6/30/2008 6:48:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2008 6:51:17 PM EDT by Milquetoast]

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By s32:


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.


I fully agree.

Their (sic) either mad because they had extremely unrealistic expectations about what the case was about, or they have the same problem as the gun grabbers which is they are unable to read English. The ruling did not say things like gun registration was ok. It simply said it didn't address any of those other issues.


Compare these two paragraphs:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment. We address only the question presented; we do not address the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Which of those two paragraphs, in your opinion, is better? The first is taken from the actual opinion. The second is what I (and I believe all of us) would have preferred. (Do you agree?) I did not expect (and did not even hope) that Scalia would say the "longstanding prohibitions" were unconstitutional or even suspect. I did hope (but frankly did not expect) that he would at least leave the question open. Instead, he hinted rather strongly (see above), that prohibitions on concealed weapons, etc., etc., do not violate the Second Amendment. That disappoints me, as I think it does all of us.

What I expected was exactly what we got. The Second Amendment is an individual right. (Good! Thank God and Scalia we won't have to hear that "collective right" crap any more!) The Second Amendment is not about hunting. (Hallefrickinlujah!) The DC ban is unconstitutional. (No s**t.) But many of the infringements we gun owners have suffered are presumed to be legitimate. (S**t.)

The rest of the opinion is excellent, and Scalia absolutely ripped Stevens a new one, but I expect that one paragraph is the one that will be shoved up our "sensitive places" in the future cases to come. That small segment has the potential to overwhelm everything else. (Cf. Footnote 4, Carolene Products.) It was not necessary. Nobody asked the Court about concealed carry or "sensitive places." Scalia did not need to mention them, and he should not have. That's going to cost us.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 4:51:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By s32:


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.


I fully agree.

Their (sic) either mad because they had extremely unrealistic expectations about what the case was about, or they have the same problem as the gun grabbers which is they are unable to read English. The ruling did not say things like gun registration was ok. It simply said it didn't address any of those other issues.


Compare these two paragraphs:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment. We address only the question presented; we do not address the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Which of those two paragraphs, in your opinion, is better? The first is taken from the actual opinion. The second is what I (and I believe all of us) would have preferred. (Do you agree?) I did not expect (and did not even hope) that Scalia would say the "longstanding prohibitions" were unconstitutional or even suspect. I did hope (but frankly did not expect) that he would at least leave the question open. Instead, he hinted rather strongly (see above), that prohibitions on concealed weapons, etc., etc., do not violate the Second Amendment. That disappoints me, as I think it does all of us.

What I expected was exactly what we got. The Second Amendment is an individual right. (Good! Thank God and Scalia we won't have to hear that "collective right" crap any more!) The Second Amendment is not about hunting. (Hallefrickinlujah!) The DC ban is unconstitutional. (No s**t.) But many of the infringements we gun owners have suffered are presumed to be legitimate. (S**t.)

The rest of the opinion is excellent, and Scalia absolutely ripped Stevens a new one, but I expect that one paragraph is the one that will be shoved up our "sensitive places" in the future cases to come. That small segment has the potential to overwhelm everything else. (Cf. Footnote 4, Carolene Products.) It was not necessary. Nobody asked the Court about concealed carry or "sensitive places." Scalia did not need to mention them, and he should not have. That's going to cost us.


That would make it obiter dicta and not binding.
It is an editorial comment, in this case probably to get Kennedy on the majority.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 6:16:06 AM EDT
I think it was pushed as far as it could have been and still been a 5-4 decision.

Much more push COULD have made this a 5-4 against us.

If 4 had no problem REMOVING the God Given Right of self defense and the RKBA, how close was the 5th to doing that?

We won, and can use this to get more.

Not a bad days work from CATO.

Thank you CATO.

TXL
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 7:08:44 AM EDT
I, too, suspect that it was probably the price demanded by Kennedy to come over to the side of Truth and Justice. What that means, though, is that rather than pretend that was just a little insignificant oversight that we should overlook in our celebratory joy, we should acknowledge that we (via Scalia) had to pay a significant price. That little sentence is going to cost us big time in the future.

Have you been following the thread in GD about the Georgia Airport prohibition on CCW in the terminal?
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=726878

All the judge has to do is say, "As Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, there is no reason to doubt that prohibitions on bearing arms in 'sensitive areas' are legitimate. The airport is a sensitive area. Gun rights advocates, you lose; sucks to be you."

I'm glad we don't have to put up with that "collective right" crap any more, but we have to be realistic; it has been replaced by a new buzzword. Stand by for mayors and governors to start declaring lots of places to be "sensitive areas" and rubbing our noses in the "no doubt" paragraph.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 11:44:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:
I, too, suspect that it was probably the price demanded by Kennedy to come over to the side of Truth and Justice. What that means, though, is that rather than pretend that was just a little insignificant oversight that we should overlook in our celebratory joy, we should acknowledge that we (via Scalia) had to pay a significant price. That little sentence is going to cost us big time in the future.

Have you been following the thread in GD about the Georgia Airport prohibition on CCW in the terminal?
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=726878

All the judge has to do is say, "As Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, there is no reason to doubt that prohibitions on bearing arms in 'sensitive areas' are legitimate. The airport is a sensitive area. Gun rights advocates, you lose; sucks to be you."

I'm glad we don't have to put up with that "collective right" crap any more, but we have to be realistic; it has been replaced by a new buzzword. Stand by for mayors and governors to start declaring lots of places to be "sensitive areas" and rubbing our noses in the "no doubt" paragraph.


And stand by for a rash of lawsuits to let the courts decide what is a "sensitive area."
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 1:11:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:
Stand by for mayors and governors to start declaring lots of places to be "sensitive areas" and rubbing our noses in the "no doubt" paragraph.


And non "sensitive areas" restrictions will continue business-as-usual.

Take the frigging ordnance signed by the Seattle Mayor:

www.seattle.gov/mayor/executive_orders/E0708-GunSafetyAtCityFacilities.pdf

As I posted elsewhere:
These policies are too general in nature. It gives this mandate almost unlimited powers...and yet, makes no provisions for increasing security for the public areas. Pretty neat little "power" tool. It can control where certain groups of people can freely assemble and It can control what type of public access they (tax payers) are entitled to.
.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 4:22:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By s32:


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.


I fully agree.

Their (sic) either mad because they had extremely unrealistic expectations about what the case was about, or they have the same problem as the gun grabbers which is they are unable to read English. The ruling did not say things like gun registration was ok. It simply said it didn't address any of those other issues.


Compare these two paragraphs:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment. We address only the question presented; we do not address the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Which of those two paragraphs, in your opinion, is better? The first is taken from the actual opinion. The second is what I (and I believe all of us) would have preferred. (Do you agree?) I did not expect (and did not even hope) that Scalia would say the "longstanding prohibitions" were unconstitutional or even suspect. I did hope (but frankly did not expect) that he would at least leave the question open. Instead, he hinted rather strongly (see above), that prohibitions on concealed weapons, etc., etc., do not violate the Second Amendment. That disappoints me, as I think it does all of us.

What I expected was exactly what we got. The Second Amendment is an individual right. (Good! Thank God and Scalia we won't have to hear that "collective right" crap any more!) The Second Amendment is not about hunting. (Hallefrickinlujah!) The DC ban is unconstitutional. (No s**t.) But many of the infringements we gun owners have suffered are presumed to be legitimate. (S**t.)

The rest of the opinion is excellent, and Scalia absolutely ripped Stevens a new one, but I expect that one paragraph is the one that will be shoved up our "sensitive places" in the future cases to come. That small segment has the potential to overwhelm everything else. (Cf. Footnote 4, Carolene Products.) It was not necessary. Nobody asked the Court about concealed carry or "sensitive places." Scalia did not need to mention them, and he should not have. That's going to cost us.


This comes from the Opinion. Not the ruling. The ruling is truly all that matters. You would certainly be correct if this was the ruling, but it wasn't. Keep in mind how absolutely wacky Kennedy is. Who knows what went on to keep him in the majority. I'm pretty sure all of us would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that room!
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 10:27:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By Milquetoast:

Originally Posted By OddballAZ:

Originally Posted By s32:


You could give these people a gold brick and they would just start bitching about the weight.


I fully agree.

Their (sic) either mad because they had extremely unrealistic expectations about what the case was about, or they have the same problem as the gun grabbers which is they are unable to read English. The ruling did not say things like gun registration was ok. It simply said it didn't address any of those other issues.


Compare these two paragraphs:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment. We address only the question presented; we do not address the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Which of those two paragraphs, in your opinion, is better? The first is taken from the actual opinion. The second is what I (and I believe all of us) would have preferred. (Do you agree?) I did not expect (and did not even hope) that Scalia would say the "longstanding prohibitions" were unconstitutional or even suspect. I did hope (but frankly did not expect) that he would at least leave the question open. Instead, he hinted rather strongly (see above), that prohibitions on concealed weapons, etc., etc., do not violate the Second Amendment. That disappoints me, as I think it does all of us.

What I expected was exactly what we got. The Second Amendment is an individual right. (Good! Thank God and Scalia we won't have to hear that "collective right" crap any more!) The Second Amendment is not about hunting. (Hallefrickinlujah!) The DC ban is unconstitutional. (No s**t.) But many of the infringements we gun owners have suffered are presumed to be legitimate. (S**t.)

The rest of the opinion is excellent, and Scalia absolutely ripped Stevens a new one, but I expect that one paragraph is the one that will be shoved up our "sensitive places" in the future cases to come. That small segment has the potential to overwhelm everything else. (Cf. Footnote 4, Carolene Products.) It was not necessary. Nobody asked the Court about concealed carry or "sensitive places." Scalia did not need to mention them, and he should not have. That's going to cost us.


This comes from the Opinion. Not the ruling. The ruling is truly all that matters. You would certainly be correct if this was the ruling, but it wasn't. Keep in mind how absolutely wacky Kennedy is. Who knows what went on to keep him in the majority. I'm pretty sure all of us would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that room!


DC Rejects Handgun ApplicationPosted By: 9NEWS NOW 1 day ago


Read Comments Print Article Email Article Larger Smaller

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they've had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

Though residents will be allowed to begin applying for handgun permits, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

CLICK HERE to get more information from the Metropolitan Police Department's webiste.



Link Posted: 7/18/2008 10:39:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:


Sky Is Falling, Sky is FALLING!!! OH TEH NOES!!!

Now, back to reality...

What Heller did was declare the 2A to be an individual right, strike down the DC pistol ban, and define the 2A right in a way that intentionally preserves the 2 major Federal laws that regulate firearms - the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act - on the logic that these two laws don't actually 'infringe'...

That is why we get language about 'laws regulating commercial sale' and 'laws prohibiting ownership by felons & the mentally incompetant' - to preserve the FFL system & related....

Which isn't much of an issue anyway... Not being able to buy guns direct-to-my-mailbox from www.walmart.com is NOT disrupting my right to keep and bear arms in any practical sense, and I'm not going to look the Heller gift horse in the mouth because it leaves this in place...

The same goes for NFA34... $200 tax, and a stamp... BFD... I still get to own all kinds of interesting & exotic weapons - including several varieties that are logically NOT covered by the 2A, but no one gives a rats ass about trying to ban (such as, let's say, a 75mm pack howitzer... Perfectly legal... Just pay your tax)...


Scary...I actuallu have to agree with David_A.
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 12:20:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackwind:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:


Sky Is Falling, Sky is FALLING!!! OH TEH NOES!!!

Now, back to reality...

What Heller did was declare the 2A to be an individual right, strike down the DC pistol ban, and define the 2A right in a way that intentionally preserves the 2 major Federal laws that regulate firearms - the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1934 National Firearms Act - on the logic that these two laws don't actually 'infringe'...

That is why we get language about 'laws regulating commercial sale' and 'laws prohibiting ownership by felons & the mentally incompetant' - to preserve the FFL system & related....

Which isn't much of an issue anyway... Not being able to buy guns direct-to-my-mailbox from www.walmart.com is NOT disrupting my right to keep and bear arms in any practical sense, and I'm not going to look the Heller gift horse in the mouth because it leaves this in place...

The same goes for NFA34... $200 tax, and a stamp... BFD... I still get to own all kinds of interesting & exotic weapons - including several varieties that are logically NOT covered by the 2A, but no one gives a rats ass about trying to ban (such as, let's say, a 75mm pack howitzer... Perfectly legal... Just pay your tax)...


Scary...I actuallu have to agree with David_A.




MAY 19 1986 MACHINE GUN BAN ?
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 9:11:43 AM EDT
The Heller decision has opened a pandoras box for regulation, and for that regulation to extinguish a right confirmed by the Constitution. That the word infringed was not even mentioned in the decision tells me that nothing has changed.

The unreasonable DC requirements that cannot be met by any reasonable person furthers the notion that criminals are a preferred protected class and are to be used to keep the populace in turmoil and to prevent them from exercising their god given rights.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 12:12:26 PM EDT
D.C. Refining of Gun Laws--Offensively Stupid


Friday, July 18, 2008

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who characterized the new law as "a joke." "Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless."

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity. That's outrageous.

As things currently stand, a handful of arrogant politicians in a city that accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of the population of the country, and less than two one-thousandths of one percent of the country's land mass, appear determined to disregard a decision of the country's highest court. Therefore, it's time for them to be taught as much about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (which defines Congress's total authority over the District of Columbia), as they were recently taught about the Second Amendment.

In an effort to remedy the District's arrogant flouting of the Supreme Court's clear mandates, Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) recently introduced H. Res. 1331, a rule to govern House consideration of a modified version of H.R. 1399--the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." (H.R. 1399 was introduced in March of 2007 and has 247 cosponsors. For more information on H.R. 1399 and its Senate companion bill, S. 1001 by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), please go to www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=72&issue=020)

H. Res. 1331 would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting the very restrictions they are now trying to foist on their residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

NRA-ILA is fully committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C., and will fight this critically important battle until victory is in hand.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to press Congressional leadership to bring H.R. 1399 to the House floor. It's time to nullify, once and for all, the unconstitutional gun laws that Washington, D.C.'s government has imposed on D.C. residents and other Americans for more than 30 years.



Voter Information



Related Links

The U.S. Senate


U.S. House of Representatives


Senate Schedule


House schedule today


Search THOMAS





Action Needed: Concealed Weapons License May Become Useless


Evanston Votes To Amend Gun Ban—Tries To Avoid NRA Lawsuit


Village Of Morton Grove To Repeal Gun Ban


ACLU Of Nevada Declares Support For Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms


Update on Four Very Dangerous California Anti-Gun Bills!


MORE >>

Grassroots Activism

New Downloadable Toolbar Lets You Stay Connected And Help NRA-ILA Every Time You Search

Stay Informed and Raise Money for NRA-ILA

New NRA T-Shirts Available NOW!

New “I’m a Bitter Gun Owner and I Vote!” Yard Signs Available Now

Seeking Nominations For 2007 NRA-ILA Volunteer Awards

MORE>>


Event Calendar




Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy


Link Posted: 7/21/2008 12:26:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By longun45:
The Heller decision has opened a pandoras box for regulation, and for that regulation to extinguish a right confirmed by the Constitution. That the word infringed was not even mentioned in the decision tells me that nothing has changed.

The unreasonable DC requirements that cannot be met by any reasonable person furthers the notion that criminals are a preferred protected class and are to be used to keep the populace in turmoil and to prevent them from exercising their god given rights.



The box was already opened.

Heller gives us a clear ruling that the second amendment is an individual right, and hints that like other individual rights should require strict scrutiny.

No right is completely unrestricted.
Not the first, not the fourth.

We have to have a legal system that works.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Robert H. Jackson, dissenting.

We have made a huge first step.
Heller's case, like many other cases, was initially rejected by the DC circuit court since on the grounds that the second amendment was NOT an individual right.
The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, and the supreme court agreed with the court of appeals.

It does not mean that everything is done and decided.
It means that we have won the opening salvo in what will be a continuing set of cases to establish and define the operation of the second amendment.
First amendment cases have a long history.
Now a history can be started for the second amendment.



Top Top