DC gun ban found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL (As if we didn't already know that)

[KB9YCO]

So, one piece of good news just came out, the DC gun ban has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be un-constitutional. I don't have a link, any news source will have it, but it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. At least some portions of the Constitution are being respected, or at least restored. Good news for anyone that values their 'guaranteed' rights!

[KB9YCO]

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The 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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1;_ylt=ApTncTla6oAO2s7pHDph4ChAw_IE)

[K8ERV]

Tnx for the link, sent it to my boys who are gun nuts.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[W5GA]

Chicago "should" be next.

here's a link to the ruling:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

[KD5ZPG]

YES...........!!! Finally a good ruling from SCOTUS!!!

[KC7YRA]

Darn, It doesn't look like DC accepts our concealed carry permits yet though :D.

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/CWP.html

Although after my last trip on DC's subway system, Maybe its a good thing that I couldn't carry my gun there

Brad

[n0ov]

Darn, It doesn't look like DC accepts our concealed carry permits yet though :D.

http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/CWP.html

Although after my last trip on DC's subway system, Maybe its a good thing that I couldn't carry my gun there

Brad

Ownership is one thing, concealed and carry permits are another.

This was a good rulling.

Perhaps Washington DC, Philidelphia and Chicago can stop trying to attack the "tools" and start going after the thugs that are creating so many of the problems.

[ac4r]

The gun grabbers lost a big one today. Too bad libs. Boo Hoo

[n8yx]

The gun grabbers lost a big one today. Too bad libs. Boo Hoo

The decision will immediately be reversed/subverted/whatever by Obama when he is elected...

[ac4r]

The decision will immediately be reversed/subverted/whatever by Obama when he is elected...

The first gun grabber to chime in. Obama will not have the power to do so. Violins please.

[N9MOQ]

. .

[W7WV]

Did they really have any choice in the matter?
There would have been mass marches in DC like they have not seen since Viet Nam.
I would have been there!!Armed too. :D

[KB9YCO]

Chicago "should" be next.

here's a link to the ruling:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

As a former citizen of the state of Chicago, um, I mean Illinois, that was my first thought, Chicago must be next.
Thanks for the details on the ruling as well.

Darn, It doesn't look like DC accepts our concealed carry permits yet though...

We've been trying to pass a conceal/carry permit here in Wisconsin for quite a few years now, but I don't think it's going to happen here or in DC anytime soon. It is indeed another level to consider, though personally I think it's a good idea as long as there is a proper system in place to screen out the wackos (easier said then done I know.)

The gun grabbers lost a big one today. Too bad libs. Boo Hoo

Libs? You're kidding right? I know, I know, you're taking the media definition of liberal to heart, but bear in mind that most of those that would sacrifice the constitution are anything but liberal in the true sense of the word (something I can't help but preach time and time again), just as much as the so-called conservatives in office aren't acting very conservatively these days.

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

[W7WV]

And this isn't new for some of us.
San Francisco banned handguns after Danny White, the ex cop, shot and killed the mayor and a councilman many years ago.
Locals knew it would not last the the court overturned it too.
If you don't know, now senator Feinstein became the the temporary mayor and made a big deal out of turning her .38 S&W Chief Special which she had a permit to carry over to the police chief while the press watched.
Most of us bet that as soon as the cameras were off that she told the chief to give her gun back just in case someone else wanted to shoot her! :rolleyes:

[KB9YCO]

...Until the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal, state or local governments to require permits (government permission) to own a gun, the supream court is a farce that doesn't understand the difference between a RIGHT and a government allowed PRIVELEDGE.

Well, I would say that it's a matter of degrees. While it is a right do we really want to have no system in place where any nutjob can run around with a gun? While I appreciate the right to bear arms I don't think there is anything wrong with a system of screening to ensure that people with mental or legal issues are prevented from owning a gun. The same as a license to drive, do you want a serial drunk driver that has killed to have a license? I really think it is a matter of degrees, and it will be interesting to see how it impacts the overall gun laws of this country since this was a federal ruling. We shall see...

[N9MOQ]

. .

[n8yx]

The first gun grabber to chime in. Obama will not have the power to do so. Violins please.

Excuse me, sunshine?

"Gun grabber" ?

Not hardly. You ASSume much - and often - don't you? You've evidently never been around my gun collection...nor have you paid attention to any of the "pro"-gun discussions on the 'Zed in which I've been involved. Many of which have pics of some of the items I own. (Can you say "black rifle"?)

But I digress somewhat.

I personally wish SCOTUS would repeal the '34 NFA and all subsequent acts dealing with firearms; specifically, SBRs, SBSs and fully-automatic weapons of new manufacture. But we both know that's not going to happen. And those of us who manage to pay attention to such things are in fact concerned about socialist government's obsession with banning firearms.

By himself, Obama may not have enough power...but Obama and a Democratic Congress, on the other hand, WILL.

[KB9YCO]

actually, I Always Found It Backwards That Republicans Were Pro-gun And Democrats Were Anti-gun. To Be Consistent, It Should Have Been The Other Way Around, Democrats For Gun Rights And Republicans Against It.

Those Against Abortion And Think It Is Murder, One Would Think Are The Type Of Religious People That Would Be Anti-gun.

Those That Are For Civil Rights And Such Should Be The Ones That Are For Individuals Being Allowed To Own Guns.

just Goes To Show You How Hypocritical And Illogical Both Democrats And Republicans Are.

Bingo, We Have A Winner! Give That Man A Cigar...

[W7WV]

Excuse me, sunshine?

"Gun grabber" ?

Not hardly. You ASSume much - and often - don't you?

I personally wish SCOTUS would repeal the '34 NFA and all subsequent acts dealing with firearms; specifically, SBRs, SBSs and fully-automatic weapons of new manufacture. But we both know that's not going to happen. And those of us who manage to pay attention to such things are in fact concerned about socialist government's obsession with banning firearms.

By himself, Obama may not have enough power...but Obama and a Democratic Congress, on the other hand, WILL.

And the states don't have to ratify an amendment anymore??
Get real.

[kf4voo]

English changes over the years. "Gay" doesn't mean happy anymore.
"Regulated" used to mean" "Equipped" - not "restricted by legislation"
So that would read - "A well-equipped militia"
- one gun brand called itself "The Regulator" (or what that a particular hand-gun model they called "The Regulator")?
Today's dictionaries don't show this meaning. Some come close. Meaning #4 of "Regulation" in Random House Webster's College dictionary 2nd ed. (circa 1997) says "usual, normal, or customary". This same dictionary, meaning #3 of "Regulate" is "to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operaton, 'to regulate a watch'" ... so, to ensure the accuracy of operation of the militia, the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed... Anybody have an OLD dictionary, like from the 1700s, to back me up? - Brian.

[AK7V]

Good!

Thank you, GWB, for nominating Alito and Roberts. And thank you Justice Kennedy for making the right choice.

Now hopefully this will get the ball rolling in California so it can join the vast majority of states with shall-issue permits.

[N9MOQ]

. .

[n8yx]

While it is a right do we really want to have no system in place where any nutjob can run around with a gun?

Then control the user of the tool, NOT the tool itself. Use a gun to commit a crime? No more slaps on the wrist.

All the 'control' in the world does nothing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining anything up to and including fully automatic weapons then subsequently using them on their victims. After all - they're criminals...

[W3MIV]

I am disappointed at the narrowness of the ruling (I had hoped for Breyer to join a majority decision, and Souter, perhaps, as well), but I am gratified for ANY ruling granting that the Second Amendment is an individual right. I strongly disagree with Stevens dissent in almost every detail, but I expected no more from him than we got. I believe Scalia scores worthy points against Stevens's arguments throughout the majority opinion.

The argument that Breyer makes in his dissent was the one that I feared most, and he states his case very well, though I disagree with the train of his reasoning in several points. Far too many pro-gunners (and I mix and mingle with them daily, and am, indeed, one of them) make is to assume that a fundamental right such as that explicated in the Second Amendment may not be circumscribed by the government. We have seen, over these many decades, much narrowing of those liberties earlier generations took for granted and exercised almost unconsciously.

I have only scanned the document very quickly; I shall read it far more narrowly later. Right now, alas, I must resume power-washing the deck -- what a monumental PITA this job is!

[n8yx]

And the states don't have to ratify an amendment anymore??
Get real.

If done at the federal level, and if a rider on something else - "Patriot III" or other nonsense - it could happen. Cut funding of some vital social programs off for dissenting states - blackmail still works in this day and age, but we now refer to it by a different moniker.

I do not trust our elected officials to make the "right" decisions regarding firearms in general, but I'm a whole lot more uncomfortable with a radical Democrat in the top spot.

[KD6NIG]

So in theory now, DC could, to comply with this ruling, make gun permits required, and set a fee of One Million Dollars as the cost.

You would have the right to own the weapon though, provided you have the proper permit, thanks to the ruling.

Sounds to me like its a victory, but not one thats going to change much. Its not like you can go out and get a gun and pack it around without a permit or without following any rules, either.

So now they can't ban them. Great. Now they will just legislate the requirements for doing so. And they could, in theory, make that legislation so bad that its almost like a ban. But since its not a ban, technically they are within the bounds of the ruling.

Or am I reading this wrong?

(Note, I don't own any guns nor do I care to, but from the way I'm reading this, there are other ways to "ban things"-just make the requirements for same so out of reach even the biggest gun person would either move or say "forget about it!" and thus they would get the intended result anyway-without technically actually "banning" them outright.)

[K9STH]

The original problem with the Washington, DC, law was that it banned anyone (other than police officers, etc.) from having a hand gun even in their residence. It was not concerned with "right to carry" or "concealed gun permits".

However, the decision did broaden the ruling to areas outside of Washington, DC, and that is what is really making gun rights people happy.

Glen, K9STH

[n2ize]

Libs? You're kidding right? I know, I know, you're taking the media definition of liberal to heart, but bear in mind that most of those that would sacrifice the constitution are anything but liberal in the true sense of the word (something I can't help but preach time and time again), just as much as the so-called conservatives in office aren't acting very conservatively these days.

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

You're correct but you might as well tell it to a brick wall.

[W5GA]

However, the decision did broaden the ruling to areas outside of Washington, DC, and that is what is really making gun rights people happy.

The one critical thing I see missing in the ruling so far (and at this point I've only read about 1/2 of it...quite lengthy) is incorporation.

Scalia's treatment of Stevens and Breyer is scathing!

[W4HAY]

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority ruling. "This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment."

Court...Affirms Second Amendment Rights
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121448371745506881.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)


I can't wait to read the hand-wringing from The Noo Yawk Crimes, The Washington Compost, and the rest of the usual suspects!

[W5GA]

The last paragraph is absolutely priceless!! Emphasis added.

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

Too bad the court doesn't apply that logic to other recent rulings, such as the death penalty for child rape.

[W5GA]

The way I read the decision, laws requiring a method of storage that effectively renders the defensive use of a firearm moot are also unconstitutional. For example, California's law requiring the gun to be either locked in a gun safe or rendered unusable by virtue of a trigger/slide/cylinder locking device.

[ai3v]

Excuse me, sunshine?

"Gun grabber" ?

Not hardly. You ASSume much - and often - don't you? You've evidently never been around my gun collection...nor have you paid attention to any of the "pro"-gun discussions on the 'Zed in which I've been involved. Many of which have pics of some of the items I own. (Can you say "black rifle"?)

But I digress somewhat.

I personally wish SCOTUS would repeal the '34 NFA and all subsequent acts dealing with firearms; specifically, SBRs, SBSs and fully-automatic weapons of new manufacture. But we both know that's not going to happen. And those of us who manage to pay attention to such things are in fact concerned about socialist government's obsession with banning firearms.

By himself, Obama may not have enough power...but Obama and a Democratic Congress, on the other hand, WILL.

C'Mon, what do you need a rifle like THAT for {insert hysterical voice}
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You need to get a .308:p

Rege

[N9MOQ]

. .

[K4GUN]

So in theory now, DC could, to comply with this ruling, make gun permits required, and set a fee of One Million Dollars as the cost.

You would have the right to own the weapon though, provided you have the proper permit, thanks to the ruling.

Sounds to me like its a victory, but not one thats going to change much. Its not like you can go out and get a gun and pack it around without a permit or without following any rules, either.

So now they can't ban them. Great. Now they will just legislate the requirements for doing so. And they could, in theory, make that legislation so bad that its almost like a ban. But since its not a ban, technically they are within the bounds of the ruling.

Or am I reading this wrong?

(Note, I don't own any guns nor do I care to, but from the way I'm reading this, there are other ways to "ban things"-just make the requirements for same so out of reach even the biggest gun person would either move or say "forget about it!" and thus they would get the intended result anyway-without technically actually "banning" them outright.)


You're pretty close. The ruling left the concept of permits for both ownership and carrying in tact. It does imply that those whom are not otherwise forbidden can't be arbitrarily turned down for the permit and excessive fees could quickly be challenged under this ruling.

I'm really a little distrurbed by the ruling. Not only about the fact that permits are still constitutional, but also about how they invented meaning into the Miller deicion. They say that Miller was meant to severely restrict arms not in common use for lawful purposes and that since an M16 is not in common use, the law restricting them is still effective. That's not what Miller said. Miller said that the defendant had not shown that a sawed off shotgun had any place in a military. Miller had no legal representation and didn't argue for himself. The fact that the 1934 NFA has been on the book for so long is the only reason an M16 is not in common use for lawful purposes today. Its a circular argument and I don't like it.

Its a good ruling. Its not great. Its not even close to being great. It will settle very few arguments and leaves open a wide host of possible restrictions.

[W5GA]

So in theory now, DC could, to comply with this ruling, make gun permits required, and set a fee of One Million Dollars as the cost.

Wrong. Note that they said D.C. must allow Heller to "register his handgun and issue him a permit" Doing what you suggest is a ban by any other name. D.C. already had a "permit" scheme in place.

You would have the right to own the weapon though, provided you have the proper permit, thanks to the ruling.

This is still open to adjudication. I think it'll lose. The court has already established that you can't license a right.

Sounds to me like its a victory, but not one thats going to change much. Its not like you can go out and get a gun and pack it around without a permit or without following any rules, either.

No right affirmed by the Constitution is without limits. In light of this ruling, what those limits might be remains to be seen. Depends on what the court decides "shall not be infringed" amounts to.

So now they can't ban them. Great. Now they will just legislate the requirements for doing so. And they could, in theory, make that legislation so bad that its almost like a ban. But since its not a ban, technically they are within the bounds of the ruling.

See above

Or am I reading this wrong?

Yep

[W5GA]

Many of which have pics of some of the items I own. (Can you say "black rifle"?)

Based on this ruling, I'd say that black rifle bans are also in jeopardy...GOODY!!!

[KD6NIG]

Thats what I thought.

I view this kind of like the taxes on "vices" like cigarettes in California. Again, I don't smoke, but if the things cost $6 a pack and you can't afford it.....

The only thing that will be interesting is the regulation that takes its place. I know I was being "over the top" when I said a million dollars, but heck, what if they do like California does with motor vehicles and registration where they base the cost of the registration on the cost of the vehicle?

Except they take it to the nth and say, ok, you bought a $500 handgun, we start at 50% of value and remove a few percent per year, till its down to $100, then you pay that every year afterwards?

Sure, there are a lot of people who would still pay it, submit to the background checks, etc, etc, but for an inherant "right" for every citizen, there are a lot of people out there who won't be able to exercise the right because they can't meet the cash requirement for it. So what, do we subsidize those who don't make enough to afford a gun permit? I doubt it. In fact, you know for a fact that won't happen. So, those people are effectively still banned from having a handgun in DC. They have the right to own a gun but cannot meet the cash requirements.

Sure, a million wouldn't be reasonable. But I'm sure they can come up with a figure that will still make a "right" under our constitution for most people a right thats unable to be utilized.

Like I said, I'm not a gun owner nor do I see myself being one in the near future, but it seems like by affirming this, they will just regulate the living heck out of it-to the point that you won't want to bother anyway, and thus although the word "ban" isn't used, they have effectively done the same. Nothing they ruled on today grants any rights. Ok, it grants you the right to apply for a permit to own a gun, pay the fee, jump through the requirements, etc.

I wouldn't trumpet this much. Nothing has changed, cept for now the legislation in DC saying handguns are banned will now be replaced with about 20 pages of legislation listing the fees, background requirements, and penalties for failing to comply with same.

The right to be subjected to regulation has been restored. Rejoice!

[W3MIV]

It will settle very few arguments and leaves open a wide host of possible restrictions.

This is made even worse by the narrowness of the majority.

Even had the full Court ruled unanimously against the DC Court and found in favor of an individual right, however, there would still be the open reality of government regulation of firearms where the state can assert a clear and compelling public interest to do so.

Your right of privacy may be pierced by a court order opening your private communications to monitoring, your castle to search or your correspondence to seizure; your right of free speech is muzzled by the restrictions placed on it by laws governing national defense information, intrusions on the public peace, inciting to riot and a host of other valid and enforceable restrictions.

This ruling is a milestone in a passage that must continue. There will be new fights ahead as the Brady Bunch and its fecund allies in the Demokratische Partei may be expected to shift their focus and their tactics. To expect them to simply throw up their hands and go away is a fool's prayer.

[KD6NIG]

Wrong. Note that they said D.C. must allow Heller to "register his handgun and issue him a permit" Doing what you suggest is a ban by any other name. D.C. already had a "permit" scheme in place.



This is still open to adjudication. I think it'll lose. The court has already established that you can't license a right.



No right affirmed by the Constitution is without limits. In light of this ruling, what those limits might be remains to be seen. Depends on what the court decides "shall not be infringed" amounts to.



See above



Yep

If thats the case though......

I guess we'll all have to get used to cursing on the airwaves, as "freedom of speech" is another one of those constitutional rights, right?

There are 50 different ways to look at this. Until they say, ok, you cannot require registration of handguns or fees to do so, its not a slam dunk as you put it.

I don't think the bans on assault rifles in CA will be going away anytime soon either. I believe a lot more is being read into this than it really is. Perhaps it is....a start.

But with the amount of time it takes the courts to do anything, and the fact that simply, they won't be blanket sweeping regulation under the carpet, we're still many years from anything of significance.

[K4GUN]

The only part of this ruling that I really like is the majority opinion that essentially calls Justice Stevens an idiot. Its truly funny.

[K5FH]

The decision itself is 157 pages long (at least, the PDF I saw was). When I get time I'll read through it and offer more comment.

Second Amendment considerations aside for the moment, this should stand as an object lesson in why this coming election is vitally important. The next president might be in the position of nominating one or two new Supreme Court justices, and the Senate will either confirm or deny the appointments. The 5-4 ruling in this case is too narrow for my liking, wherein four justices essentially agreed that the Second Amendment was a "collective" right - the favorite argument of the gun grabbers. This bodes not well for subsequent Second Amendment cases.

And rest assured that there will in the future be a number of cases seeking to refine and narrow the meaning of the Second Amendment, and these cases could well be decided by a future court consisting of one or more new justices nominated by the next president.

As many have said, the ruling itself was somewhat inconsistent: SCOTUS agreed that the Second Amendment guaranteed individual rights but, essentially, left virtually all existing restrictions on that right in place. N9MOQ is quite correct in pointing out the farcical nature of a ruling that affirms a right whle simultaneously saying that the free exercise of that right is subject to government licensure ("infringement" by another name).

This opinion appears to say a lot but in reality says very little.

[W5GA]

The decision itself is 157 pages long (at least, the PDF I saw was). When I get time I'll read through it and offer more comment.

Second Amendment considerations aside for the moment, this should stand as an object lesson in why this coming election is vitally important. The next president might be in the position of nominating one or two new Supreme Court justices, and the Senate will either confirm or deny the appointments. The 5-4 ruling in this case is too narrow for my liking, wherein four justices essentially agreed that the Second Amendment was a "collective" right - the favorite argument of the gun grabbers. This bodes not well for subsequent Second Amendment cases.

And rest assured that there will in the future be a number of cases seeking to refine and narrow the meaning of the Second Amendment, and these cases could well be decided by a future court consisting of one or more new justices nominated by the next president.

As many have said, the ruling itself was somewhat inconsistent: SCOTUS agreed that the Second Amendment guaranteed individual rights but, essentially, left virtually all existing restrictions on that right in place. N9MOQ is quite correct in pointing out the farcical nature of a ruling that affirms a right whle simultaneously saying that the free exercise of that right is subject to government licensure ("infringement" by another name).

This opinion appears to say a lot but in reality says very little.

I have to disagree here. One of the reasons this case was heard is that there had been a split between the appellate courts on this issue. 2 of the appelate courts had found that there was an individual right, while all the rest held to the collective rights model. Many cases in the last 25 or so years had been ruled against on the basis of the collective rights model at the appellate level. I think you'll see lots of these come back through the pipe now, particularly in the 9th Circuit.

The one thing this ruling does is put the collective rights model in the dustbin of history where it truly belongs.

As was said, it's not a great ruling, but is a good ruling.

[KD6NIG]

This is still open to adjudication. I think it'll lose. The court has already established that you can't license a right.







Yep

Ok, a theoretical question on that one point:

If you believe this, then the constitution states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It does not mention the right to block....felons from having that right. Just as an example.

Would you agree with that? Because you can't have some exceptions and not all. I imagine if this ruling causes bans to be struck down on specific weapons, then some felon with cash will work on that one too. You'd have to deregulate fully, or allow regulation as it stands now.

I think this ruling honestly is going to create more lawsuits and bickering than anything...

[W5GA]

Ok, a theoretical question on that one point:

If you believe this, then the constitution states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It does not mention the right to block....felons from having that right. Just as an example.

Would you agree with that?

No, in fact your point is specifically mentioned and re-affirmed by Scalia. Felons do not have that right. No right is absolute.

[KD6NIG]

Ok. I think its going to be a sticky wicket though, and this doesn't settle things.

Worst case it goes the route of "national security" being used nowadays on everything-the right for the government to do all kinds of things.

Lets hope not.

[KE7PMX]

A .22, and a .38


That is all.:D

[KB9YCO]

This thread has gotten interesting, largely beyond me as I've not studied this issue like some here seem to have. I certainly don't claim to be any expert on the issue, that 's obvious (I'll say it before someone else does), but it seems to me that this is at least a step in the right direction. I do think there is a middle-ground solution to all of this. No one wants a wild west scenario or a complete prohibition (which doesn't work anyway), but I think this is at the very least an official affirmation of a return (somewhat) to the core principles that this country was founded on. I don't see it as an all or nothing issue like some do, I really think there is a happy medium on this issue, but I think this is a step in the right direction. Let's hope so. But, and it's a big but, this will definitely be a poke at the hornet's nest on an already hot issue. It will be interesting to say the least, and during an election year no less, wow.

[W7WV]

Just confirming that the law that DC passed is still unconstitutional is all.
The anti gun folks will try anything once or twice.
It's not the first time and it won't be the last.
And the coming elections do nothing to change the constitution or it's meaning unless the president appoints some real clowns to the court.
It would take an amendment which we do have some say in.
I don't think this country is willing to surrender weapons like Hitler had his country do before WWII. Even if they did, they had better send lots of well insured people to pick them up!

[W5GA]

Even if they did, they had better send lots of well insured people to pick them up!

You know the joke about what the flag being flown at half staff at the Post Office means, right?

Job openings!


The same would apply in your example. ;)

[K4GUN]

This thread has gotten interesting, largely beyond me as I've not studied that issue like some here see to have. I certainly don't claim to be any expert on the issue, that 's obvious (I'll say it before someone else does), but it seems to me that this is at least a step in the right direction. I do think there is a middle-ground solution to all of this. No one wants a wild west scenario or a complete prohibition (which doesn't work anyway), but I think this is at the very least an official affirmation of a return (somewhat) to the core principles that this country was founded on. I don't see it as an all or nothing issue like some do, I really think there is a happy medium on this issue, but I think this is a step in the right direction. Let's hope so. But, and it's a big but, this will definitely be a poke at the hornet's nest on an already hot issue. It will be interesting to say the least, and during an election year no less, wow.

If ever there will be a middle ground in this debate, this decision is it. To me, it really seems like the court left a lot out. That's likely by design. The question before the court was whether or not one particular law was unconstitutional. It is, but they gave some hint about what else might or might not be constitutional. This is where I have a problem with the ruling in that I don't like the hints.

All in all, it is a step in the right direction.

[n8yx]

C'Mon, what do you need a rifle like THAT for {insert hysterical voice}

For 300m matches.

You need to get a .308

Rege

I was looking at a Savage F/TR a week or two back for the really long-distance stuff, but may consider a Rock River or Les Baer - maybe an Armalite in .308.

Of course, there's 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel as well. Decisions, decisions... ;)

[N4VGB]

Darn, 157 pages to print and read. But it is raining here now, so outside work is over for the day. :)

[K5FH]

The one thing this ruling does is put the collective rights model in the dustbin of history where it truly belongs.

As was said, it's not a great ruling, but is a good ruling.

No argument there. If nothing else, we now have a precise and legally-binding interpretation of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right. Whether or not this is going to have any practical effect remains to be seen, however.

[K7JEM]

That's all well and good, but how can I sign my tax return without giving up my 5th amendment rights?

Joe

[W7WV]

That's all well and good, but how can I sign my tax return without giving up my 5th amendment rights?

Joe


Come on Joe, just sign it. Those tax courts will put you in jail where you will have very few rights. And you may not like the ones you have left :eek:

I don't care what they do with the laws at this point. I will always have my guns.

[N2RJ]

That's all well and good, but how can I sign my tax return without giving up my 5th amendment rights?

Joe

Vote for Ron Paul!

[NL7W]

It's a wonderful and historic day in America. Long live the Framers' original intentions!

I never doubted the result. :):D:D

[W8NSI]

YES...........!!! Finally a good ruling from SCOTUS!!!

Pizz off a liberal...........Get A Job, Work Hard, Be Happy.
Republican........Because We All Can't Be On Welfare.

Actually that last part should be:

Conservative........Because We All Can't Be On Welfare.

McCain and his Rockefeller Country Club Republican coterie are busily dragging the party to the left with the half hearted agreement of the rest of the party.

===
One point of agreement between the GOP under McCain and the DNC as a whole: Amnesty for illegal aliens

[W8NSI]

That's all well and good, but how can I sign my tax return without giving up my 5th amendment rights?

Joe

Just sign it:

Benjamin Franklin :D:eek:;)

If the want ID pull out your wallet and show 'em a Benjamin!

[NC5P]

The real threat is still here: FEMA. They are a shadow government and operate outside the constitution. They do not respect nor obey the judicial nor the legislative branches of the government. They order firearms confiscation in disaster areas. Just ask the residents of Greensburg Kansas. They did eventually get their guns back but many of them had been damaged or destroyed. People in Iowa have had similar experiences in the past week.

This is frightening even for those of us who don't own guns. If the president ever declares a national emergency, FEMA will send thousands of police officers, national guardsmen, soldiers, and marines into every home in America with orders to confiscate all guns. (Could be all ham and cb radios, cameras, and computers) Many citizens will shoot back, there will be many funerals for fallen officers, soldiers, and marines. For what cause would they die? I would say they would all die in vain. FEMA should be disbanded, Katrina is evidence enough that they are incompetent, useless, and in fact are a severe danger to the future of our nation.

[KC4HGH]

"No one wants a wild west scenario or a complete prohibition (which doesn't work anyway)"

The anti-gunners screamed & cried that Florida and Texas would turn back into the "wild West" and that "blood will run in the streets" when both states reinstated CCW, but they soon found out their ban strategies failed and violent crime plummeted in both states because of the reinstatement.

Common sense prevails....

[KC4HGH]

The real threat is still here: FEMA. They are a shadow government and operate outside the constitution. They do not respect nor obey the judicial nor the legislative branches of the government. They order firearms confiscation in disaster areas. Just ask the residents of Greensburg Kansas. They did eventually get their guns back but many of them had been damaged or destroyed. People in Iowa have had similar experiences in the past week.

This is frightening even for those of us who don't own guns. If the president ever declares a national emergency, FEMA will send thousands of police officers, national guardsmen, soldiers, and marines into every home in America with orders to confiscate all guns. (Could be all ham and cb radios, cameras, and computers) Many citizens will shoot back, there will be many funerals for fallen officers, soldiers, and marines. For what cause would they die? I would say they would all die in vain. FEMA should be disbanded, Katrina is evidence enough that they are incompetent, useless, and in fact are a severe danger to the future of our nation.

I agree...FEMA had better look at the statistics of lower looting in areas where residents were armed and patrolled those areas. Here on the Gulf Coast, word gets around fast that they'd (looters) better not consider certain areas. When Hurricane Andrew hit Florida, residents armed with AR15s, shotguns and other weapons got some press...these were responsible adults protecting life and property while the cleanup progressed. When we were affected here locally, we had no problems and local residents watched each others' backs.

Somehow, with it's not-so-brilliant past in watching over the populace, I cannot trust an agency who's motto would seem to be, "We're from the government and we're here to help."

[W7WV]

And that's exactly why we need to keep our guns.
In order that we can protect what we have when it's required.
The help you need may not always be available.

[KB9YCO]

"No one wants a wild west scenario or a complete prohibition (which doesn't work anyway)"

The anti-gunners screamed & cried that Florida and Texas would turn back into the "wild West" and that "blood will run in the streets" when both states reinstated CCW, but they soon found out their ban strategies failed and violent crime plummeted in both states because of the reinstatement.

Common sense prevails....

Very true, but even those examples have some what of a compromise situation. You still have to have some form of a permit for conceal/carry. That's really my point, the rights of law abiding citizens can still be retained while there is still some system in place to weed out the wackjobs and the mental cases. Again, at the very least this is at least a positive legal precedent in the proper direction. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I can both sides whining already that it goes too far, or not far enough, etc.

[ac4r]

Good!


Now hopefully this will get the ball rolling in California so it can join the vast majority of states with shall-issue permits.

You dont want shall issue permits. Must issue permits are the way most states have gone. This gives the local officals no discretion , and they must issue a permit as long as you have no felony record.

[n2ize]

You dont want shall issue permits. Must issue permits are the way most states have gone. This gives the local officals no discretion , and they must issue a permit as long as you have no felony record.

Drat!!! Curses !! and an extra Drat !! You pro gunners may have won this round. But we anti gunners shall return and shall take all guns away. Heh heh heh heh.

Seriously. I am glad that they upheld the constitutional right to own guns. I just object to people who think it gives them the right to shoot anyone they want.

[n2ize]

Now may I ask. Why are so many Americans so frightened that they feel they need a gun ?

[ad5mb]

Now may I ask. Why are so many Americans so frightened that they feel they need a gun ?

Standard behavior from you. Assign the value "frightened" with no evidence.

Choose a loaded word to describe people who see the world from a different perspective.

The world over here where I am is so utterly different from the world where you live, we might as well be on two different planets. No way you can explain it in mere words.

[n2ize]

Standard behavior from you. Assign the value "frightened" with no evidence.

Choose a loaded word to describe people who see the world from a different perspective.

The world over here where I am is so utterly different from the world where you live, we might as well be on two different planets. No way you can explain it in mere words.

So why is your world so scary ? Mine isn't.

[N4VGB]

So why is your world so scary ? Mine isn't.

Maybe because you don't come up for air long enough to think about it? :p

[ad5mb]

So why is your world so scary ? Mine isn't.

Nothing penetrates your mind, IZE. Consistency is a virtue, but there are better virtues to cultivate. Making decisions based on facts, not your ill informed opinions, would be one.

You assign the values "frightened" and "scary" because that's what you believe guns are about. YOU are projecting YOUR values on others. This has nothing to do with us.

[W5GA]

You dont want shall issue permits. Must issue permits are the way most states have gone. This gives the local officals no discretion , and they must issue a permit as long as you have no felony record.

Shall issue and must issue are two terms for the same thing. California currently has MAY issue, which leaves it to some LEO's discretion. That's what you don't want.

[W5GA]

So why is your world so scary ? Mine isn't.

John, it isn't about fear. It's about choice. You have none where you live, and that's ok with me if it's ok with you. I don't have to live with it. Those of us that do choose to carry by whatever method don't do it out of fear. We do it because the option is there. The same way I'd keep car insurance even if it wasn't required. You don't need it until you need it. Carrying a gun is the exact same thing, with vastly larger consequences. If you need it, you REALLY, REALLY need it, because the cops are just minutes away when seconds matter.

Also, you wouldn't want to bring fists, a baseball bat, a knife, martial arts training etc. to a gun fight. You'll lose.

[K9STH]

IZE:

Unfortunately, there are certain people in certain areas that have no regard for the "rights of others" or for the "law". Various parts of the country, especially in major cities, these persons often prey on the elderly, the weak, and the unarmed.

I personally am not a "handgun" type. Now I do own 2 different handguns: One a .32 calibre revolver that was made in the 1890s that is not remotely safe to fire and a reproduction 1851 Colt "Navy" .36 calibre "black powder" revolver that I use for Civil War living history. Frankly, I would be "dead and buried" before I could load and fire that weapon. My original (although definitely manufactured after the Civil War) M1850 field officer's sword would be more useful in personal defense. I know that quite a number of the less lawful intended people would tend to "run" if someone came at them with a sword.

I do have a total of 3 shoulder weapons: A .22 calibre 8 shot bolt action rifle that my father gave me for my 10th birthday, a Winchester Model 37 single shot 16 gauge shotgun, and a Winchester manufactured U.S. Carbine, calibre .30, M-1. I do have magazines for both the .22 calibre rifle and the .30 calibre Carbine handy and those weapons could be loaded in seconds. Now many people think that the M-1 Carbine is fully automatic. However, it is the M-2 Carbine that has the selector switch. The M-1 fires just 1 round every time the trigger is pulled. But, it is definitely a weapon that many criminals would not wish to "meet up with".

Of course I do not wish to be put in a situation where I need to defend myself or my wife. However, the number of home invasions in the Dallas, Texas, area have been increasing and the chances, although still very "slim", that my home might be "invaded" are increasing. As such, I am "happy" to have reliable weapons available "just in case". Now it is a "sad" situation that the need for a weapon might arise. Unfortunately, that is just one of the chances that one takes "living in the big city".

Glen, K9STH

[KB9YCO]

Now may I ask. Why are so many Americans so frightened that they feel they need a gun ?

I guess it depends on who you ask, where they're at, and why they may want or not want one. As Glen wisely stated there are some areas where you're at an extreme disadvantage if you don't have one. The criminals have them regardless of what the law is and they use it to rule the roost and prey on others. If I had to live in some of crappy areas of DC or other cities I'd probably want one whether it was legal or not.

Personally, I don't own any guns. I used to have a trap gun, about 20 years ago, and it's not that I'm 'afraid' without one. But, as a true liberal I feel it's more about legal precedence and a respect for the values and core reasons that the founders established this country in the way that they did. What may come of all this is yet to be determined, but I still maintain that it's a positive step towards a fair system as well as a return to the core beliefs of our legal system. Hopefully, the middle-ground on this issue will be found, but that's yet to be seen.

[W3MIV]

Very true, but even those examples have some what of a compromise situation. You still have to have some form of a permit for conceal/carry. That's really my point, the rights of law abiding citizens can still be retained while there is still some system in place to weed out the wackjobs and the mental cases. Again, at the very least this is at least a positive legal precedent in the proper direction. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I can both sides whining already that it goes too far, or not far enough, etc.

You are correct; the whining has not only begun (as we can readily see on this forum), but you can bet that a veritable army of law clerks is now rummaging through myriad law libraries in search of new strategies to challenge the ruling or to modify existing bodies of law to mitigate its potential effects.

As I have posted elsewhere, nearly every one of our Constitutional rights has been found to be susceptible of management due to some compelling public interest. This decision will not lift the weight of arguments in favor of licensing requirements or eliminate laws enacted to keep guns out of the hands of the demented or those who have established criminal records.

I find Stevens's arguments mostly to be clever manipulations of history and fact, woven to fit his need to oppose the decision. I was not disappointed, for his stand was a foregone conclusion; I was, however, disappointed in Breyer. His dissent is the one with sufficient merit to be worrisome as this bowel continues to churn in preparation for future challenges from both sides.

[K4GUN]

Now may I ask. Why are so many Americans so frightened that they feel they need a gun ?


Who said anything about fear? I've said it before... many times in fact... I carry a pistol because I don't think I will be needing a gun. If there was a genuine fear that I would need a gun, I sure as hell would not intentionally be there. If there was no choice, I sure as hell wouldn't bring a pistol. I'd bring a rifle and friends with more rifles. Handguns are carried when you don't think you'll need it, but want to make sure you're instincts are wrong.

As to how this plays into the overall discussion, it offends me that the government doesn't think I am qualified to make decisions about my own safety. Thank god our Founding Fathers were smart enough to see the risk in that.

[W4HAY]

The 2008 Supreme Court term ended with a bang yesterday as the Justices issued their most important ruling ever in upholding an individual right to bear arms. The dismaying surprise is that the Second Amendment came within a single vote of becoming a dead Constitutional letter...

...Heller reveals the High Court at its best, upholding individual liberty as the Founders intended. Yet it is also precarious because the switch of a single Justice would have rendered the Second Amendment a nullity. With the next President likely to appoint as many as three Justices, the right to bear arms has been affirmed but still isn't safe.

Silver Bullet (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121453315144709663.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks)

*****
Gun Rights: In a decision McCain supports and Obama opposes, five Supreme Court justices say even bitter Americans have a constitutional right to cling to their guns. It makes a difference who appoints these guys...

... As the ruling stated, "The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well." The District appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now emphatically agreed that gun ownership is an individual and a constitutional right...

... The D.C. ban wasn't just unconstitutional. It was also deadly to the citizens who were forcibly disarmed. John Lott Jr., senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, points out the D.C. murder rate fell three times faster than surrounding Maryland and Virginia in the five years before the 1977 ban, but rose nearly four times faster in the five years afterward....

... Obama has played the artful dodger on gun rights. When Hillary Clinton attacked that remark, he called her "Annie Oakley" and said she was pandering to gun owners...

...On D.C.'s total ban, the Nov. 23, 2007, Chicago Tribune said Obama "believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."...

... For his part, McCain applauded the ruling. He has ticked off conservatives for trying to close so-called gun show "loopholes." But he has joined some 300 other lawmakers in supporting a brief supporting lifting the D.C. ban.

Obama was not one of them. We suspect he's bitter about the decision. Somewhere, Charlton Heston is smiling.

Bull's-Eye! (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299372526973195)

*****
In the very first sentence of yesterday's landmark Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, a constitutionalist jurisprudence to protect the Second Amendment emerges. The right to bear arms as the Founders inscribed it in the Bill of Rights "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," proclaims the ruling...

...What changes, of course, is a law-abiding citizen's right to defend himself or herself in face of a threat in "hearth and home." That is incalculable.

In what can only be regarded as a very positive sign, leaders of both parties appear to be reading their own viewpoints into the ruling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed yesterday the continued certainty of firearm regulation in the District of Columbia as well as elsewhere in the country. She is both correct on the facts and wise not to drive a partisan wedge through this debate. Following a 5-4 split along ideological lines, this comity was by no means a certainty. Of course, the wisdom and common sense of the ruling should be credited with much of that achievement.

The Gun Ban Ends (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/the-gun-ban-ends/)

[W4HAY]

OK, folks! Swallow that coffee and bump the sleeping cat out of your lap! These are priceless!!!

...The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law...

Lock and Load (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

Dunno what those kooks are smokin', but it must be some pretty potent poo!

*****
And now a word form the Land Of Fruits And Nuts...
...Presented with two historically plausible arguments about whether the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court on Thursday opted for the interpretation less suited to a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime. That's the disappointing part of the court's long-awaited ruling striking down the District of Columbia's strict gun-control ordinance...

California Whining (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns27-2008jun27,0,2275494.story)

Will somebody that doesn't mind their inbox being filled with spam go over to The Washington Compost website, sign up, and print their editorials for us? Their drivel ought to be equally hilarious!

[W5GA]

Will somebody that doesn't mind their inbox being filled with spam go over to The Washington Compost website, sign up, and print their editorials for us? Their drivel ought to be equally hilarious!

Your wish is granted!

THE NEXT CHAPTER
Historic Decision Renews Old Debate
By Dan Balz and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A01
With yesterday's decision, the Supreme Court pushed the gun issue back to the forefront of the nation's agenda, opening a new chapter in what has been one of the most contentious and divisive debates in American politics for the past four decades.
Advocacy groups braced for new skirmishes, both in courts and in legislatures. Gun rights advocates, hailing what they called a historic milestone, immediately targeted other jurisdictions with laws similar to those in the District of Columbia, whose handgun ban was struck down yesterday. Defenders of gun control took heart from language in the ruling acknowledging the constitutionality of some reasonable restrictions, but they warned of a new assault on those restrictions.
Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) endorsed the essential finding in the court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. But the gap between their past positions on gun control sparked the resurgence of a cultural debate between the presidential candidates that is likely to continue until November.
The historical significance of yesterday's ruling was more obvious than what the practical impact may be, given that it was the first time the high court declared that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
The debate "has been huge for a long time, and the court has ducked it," said Nicholas Johnson, a professor of law at Fordham University. "So historically it's important because the gun issue divides us so substantially and because we've finally gotten some resolution, but also because we've gone so long without a resolution."
Historian Alan Brinkley of Columbia University said that while the court struck a balance between rights and restrictions, "the movement has been toward greater and greater regulation of guns, and this is a step back -- maybe not a big step back, but certainly a symbolic one. It raises the question of how many more steps back the court might take."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 after the previous mayor, George Moscone, was shot and killed in City Hall, said the decision will "open the doors to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed -- assault weapons bans, trigger locks and all the rest of it."
Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) of Chicago, whose strict gun-control law now faces a challenge, said the ruling was "a very frightening decision" and asked, "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?"
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who has put together Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a 320-member coalition, reacted more cautiously. He noted that efforts to fight illegal guns have "nothing to do" with Second Amendment rights.
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court upholding those rights will benefit our coalition by finally putting to rest the ideological debates that have for too long obscured an obvious fact: Criminals, who have no right to purchase or possess guns, nevertheless have easy access to them," he said.
Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, called the ruling a "monumental decision" that will prompt more challenges and more debate. "This has put politicians on notice that this is a fundamental right," he said. "It can't be rationed. It can't be unduly restricted on the whims of local officials."
Guns are embedded in American culture as in no other developed nation in the world. From the Revolution to the frontier of the Wild West to the traditions of rural and small-town life, guns have occupied a central role in U.S. history and national mythology.

[W5GA]

Deadly Consequences -- But the Right Call

(Associated Press)
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17
Few landmark Supreme Court rulings have been so widely predicted as yesterday's decision striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The mere fact that the court agreed to hear the case was a pretty good indication that the justices were itching to make some kind of big statement about the Second Amendment. Questions from the bench during oral arguments in March left little doubt as to which way the wind was blowing.

This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I'd desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it's probably right.
The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.
I realize that the now-defunct D.C. law was unusually comprehensive and restrictive and thus, in the legal sense, offered a bull's-eye for the pro-gun lobby. I also know that the law was easy to attack on grounds of efficacy: Given all the handgun killings in the city, was the ban really having any beneficial impact?
But come on, it's not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse -- and it's not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.

I'd like to be able to thunder about the injustice committed by an activist, archconservative Supreme Court that seeks to return our jurisprudence to the 18th century. I will, almost certainly, about some future outrage. But this time, I can't.
The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.

I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.

And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.

More broadly, I've always had trouble believing that a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. I don't mean to sound like some kind of backwoods survivalist, but I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns.

Did they believe in assault weapons? Of course not. Would they be appalled that drug gangs are often better armed than the police? Of course they would, and surely they'd want to do something about it.

I believe the Constitution is a living document that has to be seen in light of the times. I believe the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, was right to infer an implicit right to privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out. I think the idea that the Founders' "original intent" should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet.

But I also believe that if the Constitution says yes, you can't just blithely pretend it says no. Yesterday's decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment's guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it -- not ignore it.

[W5GA]

The D.C. Handgun Ruling
Originalism Goes Out the Window
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17
In knocking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.

The political response to this decision from many liberals and Democrats was relief that the ruling still permits gun regulation, and quiet satisfaction that it will minimize the chances of the gun issue hurting Barack Obama in the presidential campaign. Some will rationalize this view by pointing to maverick liberal constitutional scholars who see a broad right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

But these pragmatic judgments underestimate how radical this decision is in light of the operating precedents of the past 69 years. The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right.
Here is what the Second Amendment says: "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."

Yesterday's narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the Framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless. Does that reflect an honest attempt to determine the "original" intention of the Constitution's authors?

In fact, it was the court's four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution's actual text and the history behind it. Indeed, the same conservative majority ran roughshod over the work of an elected branch of government in its ruling yesterday on campaign finance law.

It was telling in the gun case that while Scalia argued that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home" -- note that the Second Amendment says nothing about "self-defense in the home" -- it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.

The court majority, Stevens said, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." But such evidence, Stevens insisted, "is nowhere to be found" in the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer also defended the rights of democratically elected local officials in a separate dissent, saying the D.C. ban was "a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem."
In his intemperate dissent in the court's recent Guantanamo decision, Scalia said the defense of constitutional rights embodied in that ruling meant it "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." That consideration apparently does not apply to a law whose precise purpose was to reduce the number of murders in the District of Columbia.

Advocates of reasonable gun regulations found some silver linings in this decision, and it's true that a court ruling the other way could have strengthened the hand of political opponents of gun control by energizing their movement.

While criticizing the court majority, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, argued that the majority decision at least "permits restrictions on place, on types of weapons, on conditions of sale and on carrying concealed weapons."
The decision, he said in an interview, will make gun control less of a "wedge issue" by refuting the claim of gun control opponents that any restrictions on weapons lead down "a slippery slope to gun confiscation."

I hope Helmke is right. But I also hope this decision opens people's eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that "originalism" is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges.

[W5GA]

The hand wringing in this one is stellar.

The Thugs Win the Case

By Colbert I. King
Thursday, June 26, 2008; 12:28 PM

There's one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District's strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago.

Operating under the notion that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, our shooters long ago decided not to wait for the high court's thoughts on the matter. They simply arrogated to themselves the right to keep and bear arms and, with that right, license to shoot and kill, with impunity, whatever and whenever the evil spirits moved them.

The record will show that our home-grown shooters have blown through the city's so-called strict handgun ban like John Riggins going up the middle. Over the past 20 years, there have been more than 6,500 homicides in the nation's capital, most committed with firearms, predominantly handguns. In 1976, the year the ban was put in place, the District had 135 gun-related murders, according to CNN. Last year, the number reached 143. Thus far this year, we've had 85 murders.

You thought D.C. stands for "District of Columbia? "Dodge City" is more like it.

If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way.

But if our murderers are blasé, city leaders have no cause to be nonplussed by the ruling. The groundwork for throwing out the city's gun-control laws was laid last year by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Curcuit, which ruled that the Constitution gives an individual the right to possess a handgun. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative hero, wrote the majority opinion for the appellate panel.

Today in a statement, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in the Supreme Court's ruling. Are they on something? The city had every reason to expect the Supreme Court's conservative majority would validate Silberman's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It didn't have to turn out this way. City leaders had options.

In light of last year's appellate decision, they could have tried to fashion new gun-control regulations to address issues of registration, licensing of gun ownership, and waiting periods for background checks. Instead, the city went for the whole enchilada, hoping against hope that the a Supreme Court led by John Roberts and dominated by Antonin Scalia would agree that an individual does not have a right to own a gun.

Hah!

Writing for the majority, Scalia said that the Constitution doesn't allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." Folks have a right to keep and bear arms -- and, by golly, a right to use 'em, too, if necessary.

Scalia also wrote this hymn to the handgun: "The American people consider the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." He went on to argue: "There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: it is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

And if machine guns one day should become the weapon of choice for home protection -- what say ye then, Justice Scalia? With the exception of that reference to dialing the police, D.C. street thugs' response to Scalia's ode to the handgun was undoubtedly, "Hear, hear!"

And to make sure that D.C. gun owners are free to fire their loaded handguns at will, the Supreme Court went one step further and killed the city's sensible requirement that weapons be equipped with trigger locks.

So now it has come to pass that D.C. residents can keep handguns, as well as rifles and shotguns, in their homes. A well armed, informal militia we shall be -- ready to fire back in self-defense at the shooters who believed they had the right to their guns all along.

Flush with victory, a giddy National Rifle Association has announced its intention to file lawsuits in other jurisdictions with tough handgun laws. For starters, the NRA has taken aim at San Francisco and Chicago. See what we have unleashed, D.C.?

America, more body bags, please.

[W5GA]

And finally, their own editorial


Handguns Supreme

Despite the high court's misguided ruling, the District may still have some options.

IT IS deeply disappointing, though not surprising, that the Supreme Court yesterday struck down the District's gun laws after finding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

Writing for the four justices in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens offered a persuasive case that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms only in relation to service in a state militia. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

But even granting his expansive view, a modest understanding of the judicial function would not have led to the outright cancellation of the District's laws. Every constitutional right -- whether the right of free speech or the right to be free from intrusive searches and seizures -- is subject to limitation or regulation. Having overturned precedent and established a new standard, the court could and should have heeded the suggestion of the Bush administration that it send the case back to the lower court with guidelines about how gun control laws should be legally scrutinized. The District's outright ban on handguns may not have survived such scrutiny, but at least the District would have had a chance to defend its laws, including the utterly reasonable and prudent requirement that weapons in the home be secured with trigger locks. To our great dismay, the court instead adopted a legal approach that swept out the core of the District's law and may very well hamper efforts to protect public safety.

It is not clear how far the court's ruling will reach. The District is a federal territory and is clearly bound by the Second Amendment, which was in large part meant to enhance a state's ability to fight back against possible federal tyranny. But it is not certain how the holding in District of Columbia v. Heller will extend to gun laws enacted by the states themselves. It is also unclear what kind of evidentiary burden government entities must now meet in justifying existing or future gun laws.

The five-justice majority did leave room for regulation. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," Justice Scalia wrote, "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." The court also suggested that regulations concerning "dangerous and unusual weapons" -- possibly machine guns or other assault weapons -- may pass constitutional muster. And it left undisturbed the District's gun registration requirement.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and D.C. Council members expressed understandable outrage at the court's decision. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Mr. Fenty said after the ruling. He and the council should waste no time in refashioning existing laws or crafting new gun control measures. With so much legally up in the air and with many rounds of litigation ahead, the District would be on solid moral and legal ground if it pushed for gun control laws that respected the Supreme Court's puzzling mandate and were as tough as possible.

[AK7V]

You dont want shall issue permits. Must issue permits are the way most states have gone. This gives the local officals no discretion , and they must issue a permit as long as you have no felony record.

That's what "shall issue" is. Same as "Must issue". "May issue" is what we're dealing with in CA. As in, they _may_ issue you a permit if you're super-special and/or grovel at their feet.

Washington (state) is "shall issue" and that's where I got my permit. Most states are "shall issue" now - time for the rest to wake up.

[AK7V]

I just object to people who think it gives them the right to shoot anyone they want.

Who thinks that? And especially, who thinks that who'd give a flip about any sort of law whatsoever?

[W4HAY]

Thanks, 'GA!

I just remembered a seldom-used e-mail addy from way back. Let 'em fill that one with their junk mail!

*****
And now, for your entertainment, more nit-wittery:
There's one group of District residents absolutely unfazed by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling shooting down the District's strict handgun ban: the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens with abandon since the law was put on the books 32 years ago...

... If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way...

... Flush with victory, a giddy National Rifle Association has announced its intention to file lawsuits in other jurisdictions with tough handgun laws. For starters, the NRA has taken aim at San Francisco and Chicago. See what we have unleashed, D.C.?

America, more body bags, please.

The Thugs Win the Case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601755.html?sub=new)

[k7van]

As a Liberal I think this is a great decision.
Now we can get down to brass tacks and determine what does, or does not, constitute an 'undue restriction'.
For example:
Would requiring gun training courses be an 'undue restriction'?
Does requiring gun trigger locks constitute an 'undue restriction'?
How about criminal background checks?
Age limits?
Requirements that guns be stored in locked rooms?
What about limiting firearms to black powder muzzleloaders?
How about limiting to single-shot rifles?
Is denying ownership to members of certain groups Constitutional? (fill in the blank for which groups those might be!)\
How about 75mm anti-tank guns?
What's the limit on full-automatic weapons?
Is there a 'reasonable' limit on the number of weapons?
Can the rules be different in different communites (NYC vs Montana)?

This is going to be fun!

de K7VV

[W5GA]

As a Liberal I think this is a great decision.
Now we can get down to brass tacks and determine what does, or does not, constitute an 'undue restriction'.
For example:
Would requiring gun training courses be an 'undue restriction'?
Does requiring gun trigger locks constitute an 'undue restriction'?
How about criminal background checks?
Age limits?
Requirements that guns be stored in locked rooms?
What about limiting firearms to black powder muzzleloaders?
How about limiting to single-shot rifles?
Is denying ownership to members of certain groups Constitutional? (fill in the blank for which groups those might be!)\
How about 75mm anti-tank guns?
What's the limit on full-automatic weapons?
Is there a 'reasonable' limit on the number of weapons?
Can the rules be different in different communites (NYC vs Montana)?

This is going to be fun!

de K7VV

The decision covered most of you points already. You should read it.

[N4VGB]

As a Liberal I think this is a great decision.
Now we can get down to brass tacks and determine what does, or does not, constitute an 'undue restriction'.
For example:
1-Would requiring gun training courses be an 'undue restriction'?
2-Does requiring gun trigger locks constitute an 'undue restriction'?
3-How about criminal background checks?
4-Age limits?
5-Requirements that guns be stored in locked rooms?
6-What about limiting firearms to black powder muzzleloaders?
7-How about limiting to single-shot rifles?
8-Is denying ownership to members of certain groups Constitutional? (fill in the blank for which groups those might be!)\
9-How about 75mm anti-tank guns?
10-What's the limit on full-automatic weapons?
11-Is there a 'reasonable' limit on the number of weapons?
12-Can the rules be different in different communites (NYC vs Montana)?

This is going to be fun!

de K7VV

Everything that you've named is covered in current laws and in the new ruling. But since you've tagged yourself as a "liberal" and display zero knowledge on the subject, I've numbered your questions and will answer them for you. :)

1-NO
2-YES
3-NO
4-NO
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-YES
9-NO
10-Same as before, license required.
11-NO
12-YES

Anything else? Does "liberal" automatically mean that you're too lazy to download and read the decision yourself?

[K4GUN]

Actually, I think a gun training course would in fact be an undue restriction if you're talking about owership and carry within one's own home. That was not mentioned anywhere in the decision or opinion. The rest is accurate.

[K4GUN]

By the way... the GUN ban really hasn't been lifted. K4GUN will still not enter that dreaded city until he can legally carry his gun as he does in his home state of Virginia. :D

[N2RJ]

So what groups were you guys thinking of restricting?

I wouldn't mind restricting certified mentally ill people as well as people who have a criminal history of violent crime.

But I don't think we should restrict by race or religion. In fact that would NOT be constitutional.

[K4GUN]

So what groups were you guys thinking of restricting?

I wouldn't mind restricting certified mentally ill people as well as people who have a criminal history of violent crime.

But I don't think we should restrict by race or religion. In fact that would NOT be constitutional.


Current law forbids convicted felons,drug addicts, mentally ill, dishonorably discharged and those who renounced citizenship from ownership. That's been the case since 1968.

[N2RJ]

Current law forbids convicted felons,drug addicts, mentally ill, dishonorably discharged and those who renounced citizenship from ownership. That's been the case since 1968.

Seems fair to me.

[N4VGB]

Actually, I think a gun training course would in fact be an undue restriction if you're talking about owership and carry within one's own home. That was not mentioned anywhere in the decision or opinion. The rest is accurate.

Just like all SCOTUS decisions of interest to me, I trudged through the whole 157 pages, once. It does seem to leave open much in the way of state and local government controls, but it will take several rereads to grasp some aspects. The most restrictive of those state and local laws seem to have been stricken now.

I was very pleased that it addressed the most lunatic claims by the anti-gun crowd. Confirming the righteous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment applying to all people and not just those in military service. Striking down all the restrictions in the home of trigger locks, unloaded possession, locked storage, etc.

I've seen nothing that will cause any changes in our state or local laws here.

[K4GUN]

Seems fair to me.

That's the Federal law. States can have more restrictions, but not less. Most of the future battles will be over those state and local restrictions. The court decision seems to endorse the current Federal limits set by the 1968 GCA.

[n0ov]

You know, I wouldn't really have too many issues if States had more restrictions if they would simply enforce the laws they had in place before adding more restrictions.

Last time I looked, armed robbery, drive by shootings isn't exactly illegal behavior. Also, you don't see law abiding citizens participating in such dangerous foolishness.

All this posturing by the gun control crowd is not productive --- the Supreme Court did them a favor by wording things like they did. How about before adding any more laws or restrictions -- get the police to target the idiots abusing these tools and get them (the idiots, not the tools) off the streets.

Perhaps then you will find, what we already know, that a very few are ruining things for the rest of the US.

[KB9YCO]

So, it didn't take long, already there are suits in Chicago and elsewhere. It's heating up! It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Gun Lobby Quickly Sues To Overturn Chicago Ban

...The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.

"We want to overturn this ban. It's pretty onerous. It takes the right of self-defense away from every Chicago citizen," said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome... (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme.court.handguns.2.757471.html)

[W7WV]

Yes just the beginning,
I heard that in the SF area if you live in publicly assisted housing that you are not allowed to have a handgun. You agree to this when you rent.
This is also expected to be appealed very shortly.
I find it amazing that all of these types of laws ever existed.

[W3MIV]

I find it amazing that all of these types of laws ever exist.

No one could be so naive and live to adulthood.

[W7WV]

I would not call it naive. I just never heard about it.
The worst thing that ever happened to me gun wise was some local officer in a local PD in CA that that the authority at the time decided to take my permit to carry concealed away as he determined that I did not need it anymore. ( I carried anyway~prove it)
Living in AZ with open carry rules and a state that is gun friendly I just did not think about other jurisdictions and what they did. I carry nearly all the time here.
I was aware of some rules in NY and MA of course but with this decision so many I was unaware of are coming out.
When it comes to guns I don't care what laws they pass. I will always have mine.

[W3MIV]

When it comes to guns I don't care what laws they pass. I will always have mine.

In other words, you see yourself as being no different from any other criminal carrying a weapon in contempt of the law.

[N4VGB]

When it comes to guns I don't care what laws they pass. I will always have mine.


Wanna bet!? With enough Dumbocrats in Congress the SCOTUS Heller decision will be rendered moot by an Amendment to the Constitution. I imagine that plans are already being drawn. :(

[W7WV]

Take it anyway you like, but I will shoot and defend my wife and I without hesitation.
I don't take much from anyone but I know when to keep it holstered or hidden.
Other than the Army I have been carrying for over 40 years and I have never been arrested and yet I have had to pull the gun a number of times.
Criminal, that's where you and I differ. I say no man or community has a right to pass any law that prohibits my right to defend myself. I have been involved a couple of communities where calling an officer took too long for the situation. As they say been there and done that.
I don't call them anymore unless I want you removed from my property after you have passed my no trespassing sign. I have greeted more than one with my 12 GA pump on my property.

[W7WV]

Wanna bet!? With enough Dumbocrats in Congress the SCOTUS Heller decision will be rendered moot by an Amendment to the Constitution. I imagine that plans are already being drawn. :(

Yes I would bet. Bet on the fact that regardless of what passes that I will have it with me.
Bet against me in the wrong situation you lose, I live.
Those that are so stuck on that fact that one man or party is going to change the world are all stupid in my opinion.
These parties are controlled by big business and very little else influences them.

[W3MIV]

Yes I would bet. Bet on the fact that regardless of what passes that I will have it with me.
Bet against me in the wrong situation you lose, I live.


"I call them bold words for a one-eyed fat man."

Reality check time: It ain't 1890 and you ain't Rooster Cogburn. If the laws change and the state comes calling with its full police powers, you will either obey or probably face more years in prison than you have left. When you do, don't forget your dance card.

[N4VGB]

Reality check time: It ain't 1890 and you ain't Rooster Cogburn. If the laws change and the state comes calling with its full police powers, you will either obey or probably face more years in prison than you have left. When you do, don't forget your dance card.


Well Albert, there is a third choice, go down in a blaze of glory. :eek:

[W7WV]

"I say no man or community has a right to pass any law that prohibits my right to defend myself."
Need I repeat myself.

[k7van]

Richard Nixon
All corporate executives
George Jr.
W7WV


de K7VV

[W3MIV]

Richard Nixon
All corporate executives
George Jr.
W7WV


de K7VV

One could suppose the first named is above everything, not merely the law.

[W7WV]

Ever killed to survive?

[KB1QKQ]

In other words, you see yourself as being no different from any other criminal carrying a weapon in contempt of the law.

Who is the criminal? Ken? Myself? Others who feel as we do? Or the "lawmakers" who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution yet shred it. The Constitution is written in perfect clarity. Lawyers, politicians and persons with agendas seem to have a problem by attempting to interpret what simply isn't there. Yes, I know, "change the law" such as in Heller. However if the law is in violation to the Constitution, thus courts ruled as null and void; is it not a law.

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256

[W7WV]

I gave up on politicians many years ago.
And the courts followed shortly thereafter.
I have known a lot of police officers in my time in various jobs that I had I interfaced with them many times.
I am sorry to say that many were more crooked and corrupt than the people that they chased.
6 years in the Army taught me many things about life.
I have also worked repossessing vehicles of all types for a number of years and even had a chance to work with a bounty hunter at one point. He told me when I met him that he had been called the guy that my Mother warned me about. I would have quit my job in a heartbeat to keep that job but my wife did not like me doing it.
The only difference between most people and a criminal is that most of the people have not been caught yet.
But that's just my opinion.
There are victims and survivors out there. I chose the later many years ago.
I consider anyone not able and more importantly willing to defend themselves a victim. But that's a choice everyone has to make in life.

[W3MIV]

Who is the criminal? Ken? Myself? Others who feel as we do? Or the "lawmakers" who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution yet shred it. The Constitution is written in perfect clarity. Lawyers, politicians and persons with agendas seem to have a problem by attempting to interpret what simply isn't there. Yes, I know, "change the law" such as in Heller. However if the law is in violation to the Constitution, thus courts ruled as null and void; is it not a law.

Go back and read the original posts before bloviating a bunch of quotes that do not fit the scenario that was stated.

The Constitution is not written in such clarity that you have the freedom to violate law without accepting the consequences of a bad decision. As you stated above (before launching in your zealous attempt to refute your own logic), "if a law is in violation [of] the Constitution, thus courts ruled [it] as null and void[,] it is not a law." Again, read what Rooster Cogburn posted, then come back and apologize.

[KB1QKQ]

Go back and read the original posts before bloviating a bunch of quotes that do not fit the scenario that was stated.

The Constitution is not written in such clarity that you have the freedom to violate law without accepting the consequences of a bad decision. As you stated above (before launching in your zealous attempt to refute your own logic), "if a law is in violation [of] the Constitution, thus courts ruled [it] as null and void[,] it is not a law." Again, read what Rooster Cogburn posted, then come back and apologize.

Albert I did read it. I read the whole thread more than once. I believe what I said is relevant to the gist of the thread. The quotes are not relevant? I realize we would suffer the consequences of the present law, at the hands of the lawmakers, even though they are inviolate of the Constitution, thus null and void. I would certainly and gladly apologize to you if I knew what I said or did wrong.

[N2RJ]

The only problem I have with the widespread proliferation of arms is that road rage can quickly turn deadly.

I have zero problems with someone keeping arms to protect their home, but I feel that having them in a public space such as the roadways is asking for trouble.

Then again you could say that if everyone had guns, there'd be less road rage. But sometimes it's simply unprovoked. Some idiot may not like how you're driving - too fast, too slow, too far, too close, etc.

I once had a road rage incident (not in the USA) where some guys were tailgating me so I moved over to let them pass. Then they suddenly decided to pass me and go in front of me and slow way down. I don't know if they thought they were punishing me or something. So I change lanes, they change lanes. Eventually I pulled over and stopped, they got out of the car with a baton and I think they wanted to beat me or something. I pulled out my machete which I always kept in the car and my my how quickly they ran!

But imagine if these guys had guns, woe was me. Then again if I had a gun in my car I'd be even. But the last thing I want to get involved in is a shootout. It's like playing roulette.

[W7WV]

I grew with guns. Not only for hunting but for the pure pleasure of shooting.
I thank my Father for teaching me to respect firearms of all types.
I often remember from age 8 or 9 pedaling my bide for several miles across the town of some 50-60K population in CA where I was born and raised.
I used to run out to the dumps outside of town and shoot rats.
I was also hired by farmers outside of town to kill roaming dogs that own owners were turning out that attacked their cattle and sheep. Only had to do that once. About 6 of use killed about the same number of raiding dogs and the owners in that new subdivision put up fences.
I had a job to kill squirrels too at a golf course (free golf cart and ammo and lunch~what a deal)
I am convinced today that if someone saw a kid with a gun over his shoulder in a sling riding his bike through town that either the swat team would be called or he would be called a terrorist.
It's sad that we have come this far in our evolution.
When I entered the Army in time of war kids knew how to shoot. Friends who have recently retired from the military tell me that the kids coming into the services today know little about firearms other than what they learned playing videos games.
Unfortunately life is not a video game and there is no reset button. :eek:
I think it may just boil down to parents not bothering to teach their kids any discipline when they were young. I would go one step further and say that the younger and more violent generation has little respect for themselves or anyone else.

[AK7V]

The only problem I have with the widespread proliferation of arms is that road rage can quickly turn deadly.

I have zero problems with someone keeping arms to protect their home, but I feel that having them in a public space such as the roadways is asking for trouble.

Then again you could say that if everyone had guns, there'd be less road rage. But sometimes it's simply unprovoked. Some idiot may not like how you're driving - too fast, too slow, too far, too close, etc.

I once had a road rage incident (not in the USA) where some guys were tailgating me so I moved over to let them pass. Then they suddenly decided to pass me and go in front of me and slow way down. I don't know if they thought they were punishing me or something. So I change lanes, they change lanes. Eventually I pulled over and stopped, they got out of the car with a baton and I think they wanted to beat me or something. I pulled out my machete which I always kept in the car and my my how quickly they ran!

But imagine if these guys had guns, woe was me. Then again if I had a gun in my car I'd be even. But the last thing I want to get involved in is a shootout. It's like playing roulette.

There all of these "coulds" and "mights" but in _reality_, in the 45+ states that have "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits, this doesn't actually happen with CCW holders. If it ever did, it's exceptionally rare. Let actual reality be your guide, not your fears and distrust of others. You might conclude that posession of a firearm makes the vast majority of people behave in a calmer, saner, more confident and secure manner.

[W7WV]

There all of these "coulds" and "mights" but in _reality_, in the 45+ states that have "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits, this doesn't actually happen with CCW holders. If it ever did, it's exceptionally rare. Let actual reality be your guide, not your fears and distrust of others. You might conclude that posession of a firearm makes the vast majority of people behave in a calmer, saner, more confident and secure manner.

Let me say that a gun in plain view in this state (legal to open carry here) stops a lot of arguments before they start.

[k7van]

Quote:

Ever killed to survive?




Wow, am I impressed. You're a real scary dude...



The rantings of another lunatic, off his meds, but with a gun.

Just what we need in this country.

More lunatics.


de K7VV

[W7WV]

I take it you never served in combat. Nothing but fear and common sense keeping you from enlisting. I was drafted and had no choice at the time. I stayed because I liked the service and it was a mistake at the time. Somebody has to do the work of the politicians.
But then again someone that signs on here with a club callsign rather than is own is hiding anyway. So what are you hiding from coward?
Or are you speaking for you club???

[W7WV]

I guess Vince is busy changing his email address on his bio so nobody knows just who he is now.
Hiding behind an assumed identity is about like going to Canada during Viet Nam as far as I am concerned.
That was fine with me, just don't come back trying to make a mockery of those that did serve.

[n0ov]

Well the Chicago Tribune is at it again, they are calling for the repeat of the 2nd Amendment.

Hm, wonder how they would feel if someone would tie repeat of the 2nd Amendment with a similiar repeal of the 1st?

Oh well --- do on to others crowd and run never cared much for having the same rules apply to them................

And let me tell you, words can be one heck of a lot more dangerous when used inappropriately and in the wrong persons hands -- say the editor of the Tribune........

[W3MIV]

Well the Chicago Tribune is at it again, they are calling for the repeat of the 2nd Amendment.


Why do we need two?