View Full Version : District of Columbia v. Heller
wa6ccw
06-26-2008, 01:29 AM
Fasten your seat belts...
Decision expected TOMORROW (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews)
N4VGB
06-26-2008, 01:54 AM
I still think we're going to see a very narrow ruling on this one. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I've been surprised! :eek:
k7sgv
06-26-2008, 02:53 AM
Anxiously awaiting...
KB1KIX
06-26-2008, 03:28 AM
Will be especially interesting given the rulings today with Exxon and the death row case in LA for child rape.
Interesting indeed.
Jonathan
kc7jty
06-26-2008, 04:24 AM
Fingers crossed...
For which outcome?
w2amr
06-26-2008, 08:18 AM
For which outcome?
Go easy on them Bill. They think the government is going to take their bang bangs away. :p
n2ize
06-26-2008, 08:54 AM
Go easy on them Bill. They think the government is going to take their bang bangs away. :p
Bang bangs or boom booms ? :D
For which outcome?
The correct one. The one that was affirmed this morning. :)
kd8dey
06-26-2008, 04:00 PM
Bang bangs or boom booms ? :D
Out Go The LIGHTS:D
kc7jty
06-26-2008, 05:55 PM
Go easy on them Bill. They think the government is going to take their bang bangs away. :p
So do I.
Looks like I'm lined up with them on this one.
W3MIV
06-26-2008, 06:03 PM
So do I.
Looks like I'm lined up with them on this one.
Take any other position, and they will run you out of ID on a rail.
wa6ccw
06-26-2008, 11:09 PM
Rock on:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91I1FAO0.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91I1FJ00.html
k7sgv
06-26-2008, 11:46 PM
Yeah, what pisses me off is that 4 out of 5 Justices ignored the well documented founding fathers intent behind the 2nd Amendment and ignored precedent. The Supreme Court knows FULL WELL what the intent of the 2nd Amendment is. I just thank God that the majority ruled based on the Constitution and not on politics.
kc7jty
06-27-2008, 04:05 AM
Take any other position, and they will run you out of ID on a rail.
ID can suck an egg. We have a few liberal leftist Democrats here. Most the Republicans are born again California transplant culeritos anyway.
kc7jty
06-27-2008, 04:17 AM
Yeah, what pisses me off is that 4 out of 5 Justices ignored the well documented founding fathers intent behind the 2nd Amendment and ignored precedent. The Supreme Court knows FULL WELL what the intent of the 2nd Amendment is. I just thank God that the majority ruled based on the Constitution and not on politics.
Yep, they can call another vote in the future and get 5 in opposition to guns.
Mayor Daly is frightened by the ruling but doesn't wish to get serious with those committing crimes with guns. What an ass.
Let's fill the prisons with drug offenders and porno traffickers instead. They're the real baddies. :eek:
Yep, they can call another vote in the future and get 5 in opposition to guns.
Mayor Daly is frightened by the ruling but doesn't wish to get serious with those committing crimes with guns. What an ass.
Let's fill the prisons with drug offenders and porno traffickers instead. They're the real baddies. :eek:
Wow, something we agree on!
w2amr
06-27-2008, 10:28 PM
Wow, something we agree on!
Oh brother. :rolleyes:
w2amr
06-27-2008, 10:36 PM
So do I.
Looks like I'm lined up with them on this one.
Go get em buddy. I really don't care one way or the other. :D
k4kyv
06-28-2008, 04:37 AM
It doesn't bother me personally. I swapped the last gun I had for a telegraph key, over 20 years ago. I'm kind of glad I don't own a gun, because I am just hot-headed enough that I might use it and live to regret it afterwards.
But I do seriously question whether the government has the jurisdiction to tell me what I can and cannot have on my own property in my own house, whether it be guns, drugs or whatever.
I'll have to wait an see what I ultimately think of the court decision.
W3MIV
06-28-2008, 03:26 PM
I noticed this morning that the DC government is already moving to impose new measures on DC gun owners that will squeeze pass muster with the new ruling like an octopus through a keyhole. The mayor and council critters plan to seek advice from New York and Philadelphia on how to adapt their law to fit their political goals.
Instead of calling in the NRA and trying to find a middle course that could fulfill the political need to offer some safeguards to the public while also trying to ease ineffective regulations that merely annoy legitimate gun owners, the game will continue to evolve along the tried and proven political lines established in Democrat politics since 1968.
How many times would you think you could hit a mule in the forehead with a two-by-four before it gets the message? This jackass has already got one hellacious lump betwixt the eyes (don't believe it? Ax Al Bore!), and seems ready to go another fifteen rounds with the lumber.
Astonishing stupidity, and all to satisfy the far left fringe of the party. It is only one of the reasons why the Solid South is no longer solid for the Democracy. Fact: The ONLY reason the Democrats have the chance to win this electoral cycle that they have is due to the outright idiocy of Bush and the amazingly stupid policies of the Republicans. If any of the usual "Demo-Apologists" that so often post BS here about how wonderful is today's party try to doubt this, or try to assert that the policies of the current Left-Loonyist leadership have earned this chance to succeed, they are lying through their teeth. Worse, they KNOW they are lying through their teeth, which further puts their credibility into doubt.
More stupid gun control laws will not stop gun crimes; in fact, they have been shown time and again to exacerbate the numbers of gun crimes.
However, stupid is as stupid does. Watch DC for renewed proof of the dictum.
Keep it up.....
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/28/nra-sues-san-francisco-on-public-housing-gun-ban/?print=1
w2amr
06-28-2008, 04:40 PM
I noticed this morning that the DC government is already moving to impose new measures on DC gun owners that will squeeze pass muster with the new ruling like an octopus through a keyhole. The mayor and council critters plan to seek advice from New York and Philadelphia on how to adapt their law to fit their political goals.
Instead of calling in the NRA and trying to find a middle course that could fulfill the political need to offer some safeguards to the public while also trying to ease ineffective regulations that merely annoy legitimate gun owners, the game will continue to evolve along the tried and proven political lines established in Democrat politics since 1968.
How many times would you think you could hit a mule in the forehead with a two-by-four before it gets the message? This jackass has already got one hellacious lump betwixt the eyes (don't believe it? Ax Al Bore!), and seems ready to go another fifteen rounds with the lumber.
Astonishing stupidity, and all to satisfy the far left fringe of the party. It is only one of the reasons why the Solid South is no longer solid for the Democracy. Fact: The ONLY reason the Democrats have the chance to win this electoral cycle that they have is due to the outright idiocy of Bush and the amazingly stupid policies of the Republicans. If any of the usual "Demo-Apologists" that so often post BS here about how wonderful is today's party try to doubt this, or try to assert that the policies of the current Left-Loonyist leadership have earned this chance to succeed, they are lying through their teeth. Worse, they KNOW they are lying through their teeth, which further puts their credibility into doubt.
More stupid gun control laws will not stop gun crimes; in fact, they have been shown time and again to exacerbate the numbers of gun crimes.
However, stupid is as stupid does. Watch DC for renewed proof of the dictum.
There is no middle ground with the NRA or the anti gun folks. A genius like you should know that.
n2ize
06-28-2008, 05:06 PM
More stupid gun control laws will not stop gun crimes; in fact, they have been shown time and again to exacerbate the numbers of gun crimes.
However, stupid is as stupid does. Watch DC for renewed proof of the dictum.
I agree that anti gun laws generally only affect legal gun ownership. People using guns in the commission of a crime generally obtain them through illegal channels, use them and then get rid of them. The average gun owning homeowner is generally not the type that is going to stick somebofdy up at gunpoint. At the same time it might reduce the number of lunatic tgype shooting spree's. But these are rare anyways and seem popular due to majior media attention.
As far as gun control increasing the number of gun crimes that does seem to run contrary to any of the statistical analysis I have run. Many areas that I've looked at and which have gun control have either the same or lower "violent crime" rates. New York City beiing an example of a place that does have gun control yet surprisingly low VC rates. Of course to be fair VC crime rates include things other than guns. I'd jhave to go back and run the analysis paying particular attention to gun crimes alone. Nonetheless I estimate they'll probably be the same.
However I agree. Taking guns away from legally registered owners doesn;t make much sense.Itg's more "sugar candy feel good" legislation as opposed to anything of real substance.
W3MIV
06-28-2008, 06:18 PM
However I agree. Taking guns away from legally registered owners doesn;t make much sense.Itg's more "sugar candy feel good" legislation as opposed to anything of real substance.
And that is precisely the point, John. Enacting legislation for no purpose other than appearances would not be so bad were it not for the fact that such legislation unnecessarily burdens the innocent recreational shooter, as well as the individual who seeks a firearm for protection.
Consider for a moment that the military-style arms which are denounced as "assault weapons" are those that are most often used in high-end competitions (such as the Nationals held annually at Camp Perry, Ohio) by men and women who are among the least likely to use those arms in the commission of crimes. Legislators know this; they do not care about such effects because their sole interest is in posturing for a gullible public, and coincidentally, seeking the endorsements of special-interest groups like the Brady Bunch who thrive on frightening the ill-informed and impressionable.
An interesting fact that many today do not know is that Eleanor Roosevelt carried a pistol in her purse for many years, especially during those years when she acted as her husband's "special envoy." She was taught to shoot and to capably handle a pistol by NY State Police Sergeant Earl Miller, who became her close confidant, and possibly paramour, staying close well after the death of FDR.
It is never the gun that is the problem. Yet it is the gun that is the easiest target of scoundrel legislators who use fear as their primary tool of choice in a quest to attain or remain in power.
KB1QKQ
06-28-2008, 07:46 PM
When the 94 assault rifle ban was first put in effect crimes with a so called assault rifle went UP, from 2% to 3%. (sorry, no 14 year old links) In 2003-4 in Maine, Senator Stemling (sp) proposed a bill that all semi autos (even your 22's) and 50 cal rifles be turned in with no compensation. He had 18 supporters for his bill, it was shot down quickly of course. I wrote all of them, 3 wrote back, he wasn't one of them. His reasoning on this bill was "they MAY be used in the future in a crime"
When I was a licensed firearms manufacturer I had to meet 94awb specs and the little known 922r which is similar ineffectiveness at it's finest.
A win for liberty....
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27225
kc7jty
06-28-2008, 08:31 PM
...and the Republican religious kooks can not tolerate abortion. The 2x4 strikes both ways, the "hellacious lump betwixt" exists on 2 heads.
N4VGB
06-28-2008, 08:51 PM
...and the Republican religious kooks can not tolerate abortion. The 2x4 strikes both ways, the "hellacious lump betwixt" exists on 2 heads.
Abortion only became a political question when it went onto the realm of the freebies offered in "public healthcare" programs.
As Mr. Obama clearly pointed out his stance that minors should be allowed abortion without parental consent being involved.
The old D&C procedure was never medically needed as often as used, it was used mostly to hide an abortion behind. Many young ladies that I attended high school with missed days of school because of a D&C procedure.;)
K9STH
06-29-2008, 01:24 AM
JTY:
By far the majority of Republican types are "pro choice". That is they are willing to let a woman decide for herself. However, the majority of those people would do their best to discourage a relative or friend from having an abortion in most cases. But, their opinion of someone who decided to have an abortion would generally not change.
Now there is definitely a small, but vocal, minority who can even become violent where abortion is concerned. It is that minority that, unfortunately, has become in the eyes of most citizens of the United States to represent the Republican Party.
At the Texas State Republican Convention there has been a group for several decades that has tried to remove the abortion question from the political discussions because of the fact that the subject is so divisive. The group is actually comprised of some very anti-abortion types as well as some "pro choice" types. The group is not either in favor of or against abortion per se, that choice is left up to the individual. However, those anti-abortion extremists categorically state that anyone who is in favor of removing the abortion question from the convention is definitely pro abortion (even though a lot of the people involved are definitely anti-abortion) and often undertake a smear campaign against anyone who proposes removing the abortion question from the political arena.
Now there are definitely Democrats who are anti-abortion. Remember that certain religions are against abortion (i.e. Catholics) yet can definitely be supporters of the Democrat Party. Those person are also often silenced by others in the party.
Glen, K9STH
I take a back seat to no one in my support of the Second Amendment. But it should always be remembered that rights have concomitant responsibilities.
Yesterday I went to the local firearms emporium for the purpose of celebrating the Heller decision with a purchase (didn't find anything, though; maybe next time). Anyway, there was a guy ahead of me who told the clerk, "I want something for home protection but I really don't know anything about guns." As the clerk tried to explain the intricacies of a semiauto 9MM handgun to this guy I got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. Unless and until he gets proper training in firearm handling and safety, this poor guy is an accident waiting to happen. And a few minutes of "instruction" by a gun store clerk isn't proper training by any definition.
The right to own and use a firearm carries with it the responsibility for knowing how and when to use it (and, especially, when NOT to use it). These days it isn't politically correct to remind anyone that with rights come responsibilities but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
John Wayne macho fantasies aside, nobody is born knowing how to handle a firearm. It takes training and practice and you can't learn it properly in just a few minutes.
If you don't know how to handle a firearm, by all means get the proper training before you acquire one. One call to the NRA will get you plenty of information on NRA certified instructors in your area.
As author Donald G. Smith says, to pay the price for your own stupidity is simple justice. To pay the price for someone else's stupidity is needless tragedy.
w2amr
06-29-2008, 08:41 AM
...and the Republican religious kooks can not tolerate abortion. The 2x4 strikes both ways, the "hellacious lump betwixt" exists on 2 heads.
That's it , get ned flanders all fired up again.:rolleyes:
W3MIV
06-29-2008, 10:28 AM
As author Donald G. Smith says, to pay the price for your own stupidity is simple justice. To pay the price for someone else's stupidity is needless tragedy.
And for your stupidity to extract a price from an innocent bystander is even worse.
N4VGB
06-29-2008, 10:37 AM
And for your stupidity to extract a price from an innocent bystander is even worse.
Most commonly the product of our local "drive-by" shooting artists. The maroons never seem able to hit their intended victim. :rolleyes:
W3MIV
06-29-2008, 11:05 AM
Most commonly the product of our local "drive-by" shooting artists. The maroons never seem able to hit their intended victim. :rolleyes:
In simple fact, there is probably little difference between a drive-by thug spraying lead and a novice "CCW" licensee in the midst of a street melee.
I can attest to the fact that the very finest marksmen do not often retain the requisite skills needed when confronted with the reality of a confrontation with guns. There is a very real difference between a paper image of a thug with a gun hanging on a wire trolley and the real McCoy in a dark alley. It takes intense and repetitive training to master the requirements, and not many regular-duty police can measure up; many of them who want to "carry" are ill-prepared to meet the need for discretion and competent management demanded under the intense pressure of a confrontation.
There are, at present, many who are licensed to carry who are eminently unqualified to do so, though that is not the fault of the laws that permit such licensing.
Free speech was also a winner.....
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121460646723712065.html
N4VGB
06-29-2008, 12:26 PM
There are, at present, many who are licensed to carry who are eminently unqualified to do so, though that is not the fault of the laws that permit such licensing.
The program here is about 12 years old at this time and has a very good record. The states that require "open carry" or "in plain sight carry" seem to benefit most in crime reduction numbers. I've never been a proponent of "concealed carry", it seems more of an invitation to a firearm homicide than a deterrent factor.
I've only heard of a few novices that have applied locally and I've been told that most of those dropped out of the training after firing a few rounds at the range and never received their permits. Many more withdraw their application after being versed in the legal ramifications involved in the actual use of their handgun, deciding it best to just keep it in their home. Of course property owners can carry while on their property without permit, unless city or county ordinance states otherwise.
Luckily only dogs have expired at the business end of my handguns and I hope it stays that way.
w2amr
06-29-2008, 01:06 PM
The program here is about 12 years old at this time and has a very good record. The states that require "open carry" or "in plain sight carry" seem to benefit most in crime reduction numbers. I've never been a proponent of "concealed carry", it seems more of an invitation to a firearm homicide than a deterrent factor.
I've only heard of a few novices that have applied locally and I've been told that most of those dropped out of the training after firing a few rounds at the range and never received their permits. Many more withdraw their application after being versed in the legal ramifications involved in the actual use of their handgun, deciding it best to just keep it in their home. Of course property owners can carry while on their property without permit, unless city or county ordinance states otherwise.
Luckily only dogs have expired at the business end of my handguns and I hope it stays that way.
You shoot dogs?
N4VGB
06-29-2008, 03:00 PM
You shoot dogs?
Not on a leash or not under voice command legally equals fair game here. But I'm not in the habit of dispatching them on sight. The 2 that met their demise by my hand were in full attack mode on humans.
W3MIV
06-29-2008, 03:08 PM
Not on a leash or not under voice command legally equals fair game here. But I'm not in the habit of dispatching them on sight. The 2 that met their demise by my hand were in full attack mode on humans.
Anyone here involved? Next time, call me before busting a cap. Depending upon the identities of the attackees, I may urge your support for the dogs.
On second thought, permitting the recalcitrant curs to nibble on the likes of some of our posters is likely to inspire a suit by the SPCA or the misnamed "Humane" Society. Can you say "hydrophobia?"
w2amr
06-29-2008, 05:08 PM
Not on a leash or not under voice command legally equals fair game here. But I'm not in the habit of dispatching them on sight. The 2 that met their demise by my hand were in full attack mode on humans.
Towns Around here are pretty diligent about getting strays off the street. The local animal shelters are filled with pit bulls that were turned loose by the brothers over in Camden. :(
There are, at present, many who are licensed to carry who are eminently unqualified to do so, though that is not the fault of the laws that permit such licensing.
How many "novice" CCW holders actually injure bystanders? I can't think of any reports.
In WA, there are no training requirements for a CCW permit. Thousands of people carry, even in places like Seattle. But I have never heard of some third party accidentally being shot by a CCW holder.
Your theory doesn't correspond with the real world.
N4VGB
06-29-2008, 05:46 PM
Towns Around here are pretty diligent about getting strays off the street. The local animal shelters are filled with pit bulls that were turned loose by the brothers over in Camden. :(
An influx of Cambodians and Vietnamese cured of our stray dog disease. I hear old yeller is quite tasty when properly prepared. :rolleyes:
W3MIV
06-29-2008, 06:13 PM
Your theory doesn't correspond with the real world.
How so? You cannot refute the potential on the basis of a negative. For many, many decades the existence of the neutron was nothing more than speculation. It was there, however, waiting to bite us in the butt. Now we may wish the damn thing had never been discovered. How can you be so sure that a major disaster is not in the offing? Pure faith in yourself and the RKBA crowd? Thin. Very thin.
I have had a lot of years experience observing the training sessions of security guards who are being tested on weapons management and handling. Now, when they come into the range, I leave. It is not so much the genuine newbies about whom I am concerned, but those "experts" (the Wyatt Earps and William Bonnys out there) who were rushed through an orientation and grabbed a certificate and pronounced themselves qualified solely on the basis of having shot a pistol some few times and managed to get all of the bullets on the proper side of the firing line.
I know several folks in VA (where I own a home) who should not be carrying a pocket knife for fear of damage to themselves and anyone else in the county.
How so? You cannot refute the potential on the basis of a negative. For many, many decades the existence of the neutron was nothing more than speculation. It was there, however, waiting to bite us in the butt. Now we may wish the damn thing had never been discovered. How can you be so sure that a major disaster is not in the offing? Pure faith in yourself and the RKBA crowd? Thin. Very thin.
There's data. We can look at the myriad of states with CCW and see how often CCW holders shoot innocent bystanders, which is what I pointed out. We can draw probable conclusions based on that data or we can be afraid of a potential reality we imagine. I could never leave the house, fearing all the potential horrors I may face on the way to work. Snakebites, flash floods, alien abduction, sink holes, mistaken identity, rabid dog attack, reversal of the poles, meteor strike, Pedro next door with the CCW accidentally shooting me, etc. etc.
This type of fear is probably why we don't have more nuclear power plants in the US.
Even the yahoos and Wyatt Earps aren't accidentally shooting innocent bystanders on the street. What do you think is going to change? Because, like I said, the states with the most liberal CCW laws aren't having these problems, and haven't for decades.
wa6ccw
07-04-2008, 09:25 PM
Statement of interest by the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=269)
Enjoy!
As long as we get more guns into the hands of criminals, you will keep happy.
When murder is legalized, only criminals will not kill.
wa6ccw
07-05-2008, 04:27 PM
Breakdown and specific detail located here: Highlights From The Heller Decision (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010)
Dumb DEM DC mayor....
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/07/dc-mayor-still-unclear-on-the-concept-explained-heller/?print=1