Post by: gene on February 28, 2008, 06:45:26 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 28, 2008, 07:26:59 PM
Can you explain a bit, I am sort of slow... :dunno:
Post by: gene on February 28, 2008, 07:34:05 PM
Post by: gene on February 28, 2008, 07:36:00 PM
Post by: Ray on February 28, 2008, 07:36:28 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 28, 2008, 07:36:43 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on February 28, 2008, 07:45:51 PM
Post by: gene on February 28, 2008, 07:54:10 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on February 29, 2008, 08:14:02 AM
Suppose there's a connection :dunno:
:bash: :bash:
Post by: sisu on March 07, 2008, 01:21:43 PM
I wanted to take a moment to share with you the recent decision made by the U.S. Appeals Court in regard to the Washington, D.C. handgun ban. Using the Second Amendment as support, the court voted 2-1 to overturn the handgun ban as unconstitutional and allow for the individual possession of handguns in the District of Columbia.
Citing the Second Amendment the majority ruled that the right to bear arms is not restricted solely to militia or military bodies, but rather was intended to be an individual statute. The decision to overturn the ban rejects a law that was passed nearly 30 years ago in D.C. as an anti-crime measure. In response to an appeal of this decision by the appeals court, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
I felt that this case was an important battle for gun owners and I, along with 249 other members of the House of Representatives and 55 members of the Senate, signed an Amicus Brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court urging them to overturn the gun ban. A copy of this brief can be located at this website: www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/07_290bcongress_amicus_heller.pdf.
This ruling by the appeals court is an enormous step forward for gun owners and proponents of Second Amendment rights. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this case at the Supreme Court level and the impact this will have on gun ownership across the country. If you have any further questions on this issue or other issues, please visit my website at www.mcmorris.house.gov.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 07, 2008, 01:32:44 PM
Post by: Head-shot on March 07, 2008, 10:31:53 PM
Post by: Bofire on March 18, 2008, 09:57:36 AM
I predict a half-assed response, something like, the 2nd. amendment stands but may be interpreted locally or other nonsense.
I cant see any of the Justices really standing up.
Carl
Post by: kramman on March 18, 2008, 10:40:21 AM
Post by: EMPyre on April 13, 2008, 05:39:43 PM
The exact wording of the second amendment: 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.
The problem is the legal interpretation of the comma that appears after the word 'Arms'. What is being interpreted is the implied meaning of that comma by those opposed to private fire arms ownership is this: The government has the right to arm a militia to protect the government AND the citizenry. The argument here is that the security of a free State shall not be infringed and not directly the right to own fire arms.
If that comma were not there, (and in fact in some original drafts of the bill of rights it does not) then the meaning would be much better clairfied. It would then in fact explicitly allow for the citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. What we need to hope is that the Supreme Court will actually grow a pair this summer and deliver a verdict that defines the second amendment correctly and clearly as we all know and understand it to mean.
Post by: Shadow Cat on April 18, 2008, 11:30:42 AM
Post by: sisu on June 17, 2008, 05:54:32 AM
The antis were out strong and forceful on the news this AM as was some female high ranking DC police officer blabbing about how guns laws prevent gun violence.
I hope the court is more united toward our way of thinking than they were on Guantanamo. :bash:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 17, 2008, 06:36:00 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 17, 2008, 06:37:46 AM
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 18, 2008, 02:19:52 AM
There are three Justices that will vote to uphold thr DC gun ban: Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsberg. What it boils down to is which side can bring two of the three swing judges (Kennedy, Roberts, and Souter) to their side. Most likely Roberts would be with up and your guess is as good as mine on Kennedy and Souter. Five justices, a bare majority, signaled they believe the amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. We should win this case. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."
I am pretty confident that the Supreme Court will rule the Second Amendment an individual right, not a collective right. The question will be is how far they will go to strike down the right of municipalities to restrict guns.
Post by: Machias on June 20, 2008, 02:36:45 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 21, 2008, 04:58:33 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on June 21, 2008, 06:21:29 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 22, 2008, 10:38:34 AM
Post by: sisu on June 25, 2008, 08:21:44 PM
Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.
Paul Duggan
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews
Post by: bowhuntin on June 25, 2008, 08:31:34 PM
June 26 is supposed to be the day according to this article
Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.
Paul Duggan
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews
If that is true then you should be able to find the slip opinion here come tomorrow... http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html
Post by: Bofire on June 26, 2008, 07:44:14 AM
Great Day in the Morning.
Carl
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 26, 2008, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on June 26, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 26, 2008, 08:09:35 AM
Remember this day guys, this is really big.
10,000% AGREE
Post by: GoldTip on June 26, 2008, 08:18:27 AM
Post by: bearhunter59 on June 26, 2008, 02:16:35 PM
:IBCOOL: :IBCOOL: :rockin: :hunter: :mgun2: :mgun:
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 26, 2008, 03:13:12 PM
Suits will be filed against other gun bans. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The Court was split 5-4, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion.
"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command," Justice Scalia wrote. "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." Justice Scalia was joined on the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.
Post by: ICEMAN on June 26, 2008, 07:42:26 PM
What is scary is that 4 of them voted to uphold the ban, deny the right....
Post by: 280ackley on June 26, 2008, 09:48:44 PM
What is scary is that 4 of them voted to uphold the ban, deny the right....
Yes that is scary. It just goes to show people it could happen here. What would the Cort look like if Al Gore or John Kerry would have won the White House. People need to think about who might be nominated to the supream cort when deciding on a president.
Post by: Ray on June 26, 2008, 09:49:43 PM
Post by: 280ackley on June 26, 2008, 09:52:43 PM
The supreme court justices should not be placed into the benches to legislate. That seems to the a major problem in a lot of court cases I hear about on the news.
I couldn't agree more.
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 26, 2008, 10:23:15 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 26, 2008, 10:44:08 PM
Post by: sisu on June 27, 2008, 05:50:18 AM
``The right the court announces was not `enshrined' in the Second Amendment by the framers,'' Stevens wrote. ``It is the product of today's law-changing decision.''
Scalia said government can still bar handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and restrict bringing guns into schools or government buildings. He also suggested that concealed-weapons bans were constitutional.
Still, the decision may make gun restrictions in Chicago, New York City and other cities more vulnerable to legal challenges. Gun rights advocates including the National Rifle Association vowed to begin new legal moves and said some background checks and automatic-weapon bans are legally questionable.
``Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it,'' said the NRA in a statement on its Web site.
The validity of restrictions may depend on Kennedy, Howard said. Kennedy ``may take a fairly generous view of state police power and vote with the four liberals to uphold regulations,'' he said.
Strictest Ban
Washington's 32-year-old gun law, perhaps the strictest in the nation, barred most residents from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents disputed the law, saying they wanted firearms at home for self-defense.
``After 30 years of ignoring that right, the District will finally have to respect it,'' said one of the residents, Dick Heller, who works as an armed security guard at a federal government building in Washington.
Washington's mayor, Adrian Fenty, said he is disappointed. ``More handguns in the District will mean more gun violence,'' he said at a press conference.
The decision didn't resolve whether the Second Amendment binds the states in addition to the federal government and the nation's capital.
Second Amendment
Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads: ``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.''
The justices in the majority said they had ``no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.''
The Supreme Court hadn't considered the Second Amendment since 1939, when it issued a ruling that both sides in the debate later claimed as support for their arguments.
The ruling drew words of support from both major-party presidential candidates. Republican John McCain in a statement called gun ownership a ``fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.''
And then Obama changes his opinion again!
Democrat Barack Obama said on Bloomberg Television that he agrees with the court's ``overall reasoning'' and the Washington gun ban probably ``overshot the runway.''
Kennedy's Views
Kennedy's views on the gun case became clear during arguments in March, when he said the Second Amendment confers ``a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.'' After the arguments, proponents of the ban conceded they almost certainly would lose on the individual- rights question...
``The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,'' he wrote.
``He's beginning to flex his muscles,'' Howard said. ``His opinion style is a bit more self-confident, a bit more expansive, as if he's looking not only to the opinion at hand but also the history books.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.
Post by: Machias on June 27, 2008, 01:44:52 PM
Post by: Machias on June 27, 2008, 01:54:05 PM
SEVEN by Republican Presidents two of which are as Liberal as both of Clinton's appointments and with McCain almost as Liberal as old time Demoncrats, his appointments are nothing to get excited about IMO!
Post by: Hunter4Life on June 27, 2008, 07:39:56 PM
I could not agree more on your opinion of McCain. I am not excited about him either, but I look at the alternative. I hate a choice between the lesser of two evils, but I think Obama is really, really bad.
Post by: sisu on June 28, 2008, 09:13:24 PM
John McCain yesterday attacked Barack Obama for his "elitist" views on gun control after the Supreme Court proclaimed that every US citizen had the right to own guns for self-defence and hunting.
In a long-awaited ruling, the court struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns as unconstitutional. It marked the first significant Supreme Court ruling on gun rights in US history.
Mr McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed the ruling as a "landmark victory" for gun rights and highlighted his opponent's past support for the ban.
Mr Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, acknowledged the court's decision that the ban "went too far", but said the ruling made clear that states and cities were allowed to impose "reasonable regulations" on gun ownership.
Post by: rewent12003 on July 26, 2008, 05:53:43 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on September 08, 2008, 01:49:01 PM
the secound ammendment is great and all some of us have to give up our rights to own guns do to an arrest record, my question is how long do i have to go before i can use my secound ammendment rights again i mean come on its been 22 years for the felon and 10 for the misdameanor when is punishment going to be over. :bash: >:(
Alas, for a felony conviction on your record, you're pretty much screwed.
Post by: 12Gauge on September 09, 2008, 07:52:50 AM