Gun and Game Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

More...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,437 Posts
A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

More...

Good... it's about damn time. Maybe the politicians in Wisconsin will realize that they cannot deny the citizens the 2nd Amendment much longer... or face being voted out of office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
good this should insure our rights for some time, to celebrate the unofficial ruling I think I will have to purchase another firearm!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Look, I don't relish being a "wet blanket" But perhaps we should hold off celebrating until the offical ruling is made known to the country. If the supremes sing our tune THEN I'll celebrate and drink a beer or two or six or ten. But I do believe that celebrating now is "jumping the gun" so to speak.
I hope and pray that their ruling will favor "our side" but let's wait and see. In the meantime we should do what we can to "influence" their decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
I believe they are going to rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but will leave room for individual cities,towns,states, etc. etc. etc., to insert there own common sense rules or laws. At least that's kind of what i got from listening in on C-Span to the replay of the verbage. Something along the lines, a person can have a hand gun, but only a revolver or only 1 handgun per adult or only a certain caliber and they must be unaccessible to children. That type of crap. I could an hope to hell I'm wrong on the latter parts, but I have a feeling it will be 50/50 as they want to try and please everyone.; and we all know that's hard to do.
 

·
Gun Toting Boeing Driver
Joined
·
20,583 Posts
I believe they are going to rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but will leave room for individual cities,towns,states, etc. etc. etc., to insert there own common sense rules or laws. At least that's kind of what i got from listening in on C-Span to the replay of the verbage. Something along the lines, a person can have a hand gun, but only a revolver or only 1 handgun per adult or only a certain caliber and they must be unaccessible to children. That type of crap. I could an hope to hell I'm wrong on the latter parts, but I have a feeling it will be 50/50 as they want to try and please everyone.; and we all know that's hard to do.
I think you might be right. Although their job isn't to please people, it's to interpret the constitution the way it was intended. The "trigger lock" thing kinda bugged me; I don't know if it was simply the way the legal arguments go. But a law mandating trigger locks is pretty stupid. I completely believe you have to maintain positive control of your weapon always; however, how you do so depends entirely on your situation and you can't legislate that. The best situation is carrying. Sometimes it's perfectly safe to have a loaded gun on the table; sometimes you need it secured in some type of safe. In any case, YOU'RE responsible for this, not some third party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Skeptical?

Ha. Sure they agreed right off the bat that we have the right to bear arms. We won! Go back to sleep now while they determine reasonable restrictions. The devil will be in the details. There IS no reasonable restriction, it SHALL not be infringed, period. In other words don't mess with it! This fight is far from over, they will try for our guns, period. We need to do some heavy research into Heller. Who is he? What affiliations does he have? We are sitting on the biggest powder keg in history right now. The M-16 is the equivalent of the muskets they had in their day. Bush has said more than once that if a gun ban came across his desk, he would sign it. You need to read the entire briefs of over 100 pages friends. They are Judas goats. Send them registered mail with your opinions now. This came from Larry Pratt of the GOA. And for the ones who like the NRA, They were formed by the govt along time ago and helped write the 1968 Gun Ban, go look it up. This is dread people, truly dread. I will obey the 2 nd only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
Scalia and Roberts are very pro I think Bader will be the only one against 2A
Well that would then be 2/3 majority, Heller wins. lol Wait, I forget, how many Judges are there? lol Also, rarely does the Supreme court go against what the lower courts ruling. And we have to remember, the lower court did side with Heller and say the D.C. ban was/is unconstitutional and that the ban went against his 2nd Amendment rights.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,554 Posts
Ha. Sure they agreed right off the bat that we have the right to bear arms. We won! Go back to sleep now while they determine reasonable restrictions. The devil will be in the details. There IS no reasonable restriction, it SHALL not be infringed, period. In other words don't mess with it! This fight is far from over, they will try for our guns, period. We need to do some heavy research into Heller. Who is he? What affiliations does he have? We are sitting on the biggest powder keg in history right now. The M-16 is the equivalent of the muskets they had in their day. Bush has said more than once that if a gun ban came across his desk, he would sign it. You need to read the entire briefs of over 100 pages friends. They are Judas goats. Send them registered mail with your opinions now. This came from Larry Pratt of the GOA. And for the ones who like the NRA, They were formed by the govt along time ago and helped write the 1968 Gun Ban, go look it up. This is dread people, truly dread. I will obey the 2 nd only.
Don't get carried away, Deersniper. How can you say, "there is no reasonable restriction?" There isn't a right we have that can't be reasonably restricted. We have a right to free speech, but printing lies about people will get you sued for slander, and you'll lose. We have a right to freedom of religion, but try sacrificing your first-born and see how many years you get.

Obviously, there is such a thing as a reasonable restriction. For example, refusing to sell a child a gun without his parent's permission is certainly a restriction; taking guns away from someone who's hunting down his ex-wife to shoot her is a restriction; not allowing prisoners to keep guns in their cells is certainly a reasonable restriction; keeping guns out of the peanut gallery in court is a reasonable restriction.

I agree the Devil is in the details. But that doesn't mean you throw up your hands and declare, "there can be no details, because they might get it wrong!" It just means the fight isn't over. So what? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom; we keep right on sorting out what they can and can't get away with passing, and pushing back when they get it wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
DC case

I saw on TV last night where 7 judges were agreeing that we have the individual right to bear arms. That is encouraging. The 2nd says nothing about a collective issue. Troy, sorry if I'm a little cautious because of their past track record. Not to mention the constant media bashing. Every time we have made concessions, they want more. Does any one have the statistics of how many lives are saved every year by gun owners?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,918 Posts
I say yes and no to "reasonable restrictions."

Reasonable restrictions include not being permitted to threaten people with them, transport them unsecurely, make them available to untrained minors or criminals, and for landowners, businesses, and government buildings to have the right to choose whether or not to have them on their property.

One could argue that those are not actually restrictions on the RKBA. Restrictions on them within the walls of the home between adults and trained youth are not acceptable, neither are laws that restrict carrying them to the point of handicapping their effectiveness.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,554 Posts
I saw on TV last night where 7 judges were agreeing that we have the individual right to bear arms. That is encouraging. The 2nd says nothing about a collective issue. Troy, sorry if I'm a little cautious because of their past track record. Not to mention the constant media bashing. Every time we have made concessions, they want more. Does any one have the statistics of how many lives are saved every year by gun owners?
Believe me, Deersniper: I understand the feeling. And whatever the judges rule certainly won't be the end of the matter; it'll just be a new start on deciding what reasonable is. Gonna be a lot of money made by lawyers on both sides for the next twenty years or so, I'm guessing...

I've seen gun use statistics, but I'm not sure where to go looking for them at the moment. And the hard part of gathering them is that most reasonably firm statistics only look at the times a gun was fired, by one side or the other. It's almost impossible to collect and count the instances where a gun stopped trouble without having to be fired. For example, the story I told in the Powder Keg a few days ago, where I discouraged a guy prying at a door, just by chambering a round on the other side of it, will never be counted by anyone.

I say yes and no to "reasonable restrictions."
Reasonable restrictions include not being permitted to threaten people with them, transport them unsecurely, make them available to untrained minors or criminals, and for landowners, businesses, and government buildings to have the right to choose whether or not to have them on their property.
One could argue that those are not actually restrictions on the RKBA. Restrictions on them within the walls of the home between adults and trained youth are not acceptable, neither are laws that restrict carrying them to the point of handicapping their effectiveness.
In other words, BRG3, you believe 'reasonable restrictions' should be restricted to only those restrictions which are actually reasonable. What a concept. It'll never fly; it makes too much sense:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,918 Posts
Perhaps regulation in the constitutional sense is where they should be focusing and junk the concept of a restriction. Regulation in that sense means trained, uniform, reliable, safe, and competent.

So I say NO to "reasonable restrictions" and OK to regulation in the constitutional sense.
 

·
Gun Toting Boeing Driver
Joined
·
20,583 Posts
Perhaps regulation in the constitutional sense is where they should be focusing and junk the concept of a restriction. Regulation in that sense means trained, uniform, reliable, safe, and competent.

So I say NO to "reasonable restrictions" and OK to regulation in the constitutional sense.
+1

I'd rather not see felons carrying firearms (not that our laws do much to prevent this); However, I'd much rather a felon have access to a firearm than me NOT have access to a firearm. Likewise, the age of responsibility of toting a firearm should be left to the parents -- I remember in my youth we were allowed to on my grandparent's farm after we demonstrated proficiency and responsibility; this was in our teen years. And we practiced safe firearm handling and didn't incur any accidents or "blood in the streets." Farily wholesome way to grow up.

Sometimes, I think we get confused about the constitution. It affirms basic rights and limits government. There's not alot of "reasonableness" there, and the word "reasonable" restriction is usually just an excuse for someone with an agenda to push all the restrictions they want. God given and affirmed rights favor the absolute.

The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy/ruling is frequently misused in a misguided belief that it allows government to pass laws which restrict constitutional rights. The ruling doesn't allow the limitation of your first amendment right of free speech by government; it does re-affirm your personal accountability if you do something harmful. Simply put, it doesn't change the "congress shall make no law" portion, but does say that if you make an act of commission which hurts others you'll be held responsible. Likewise, your freedom of religion isn't limited; however, you can't use that "freedom" to commit an act of murder based on your religion -- the purpose of the constitution is to limit government, not as your personal shield to do whatever you want. You are free to keep and bear arms; however, you are not given a pass if you bear arms irresponsibly, commit an AD and hurt someone. You are free to pray and thank God in school (and in your studies, works, and speeches); however, you aren't free to remain in school if you are disrupting it constantly with your personal prayer time or unwelcome platitudes. You are free to print whatever you want. If you repeatedly and maliciously print a pack of lies about someone, they might be able to sue you and have you admit you lied. You are free to peacefully assemble; you're not free to block major highways for days to force your agenda. There's a subtile but very important difference there.

When we come to the 4th and 5th amendments, these are wholly to limit government intrusion into our lives. As such, they need to be taken at face value. Quite simply, any search requires a warrant. This is inconvenient as hell (but maybe easier in the computer age). It's supposed to be. It's a judicial check on an executive function.

The bill of rights isn't one we can just pick and choose. The media does this with the 2nd amendment -- they advocate freedom of the press, but don't like the RKBA so they just ignore it or make it into something it's not. If we don't like part of the constitution, the answer is we amend it not ignore it. Would we choose to, we're going to find out that we have no rights at all. Other countries have gone down this path; many facing problems much more severe than now.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top