Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6416|Truthistan
Yaaa sanity at the Supreme Court. Here is the news story.


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defence and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went 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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home," Justice Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Mr. Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Justice Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defence.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-06-26 08:07:14)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California
Eat THAT Brady douchebags!!!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 07-290.pdf

Wow, just read about 20 pages.  Finally, this court does something right!  But i still can't believe 4 of them think the 2A pertains to the militia...  But whatever.  It is finalized...the 2A is truly meant to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.  It is an "ancient" right to protect oneself with firearms says Scalia.  i would have said it's inalienable, but that's cool.

Further, all them anti-gun yahoos (particularly that NY yap mccarthy who keeps refiling her semi-auto ban in the house) can suck on my M1A and my SKS and my AR and my AK becuase...

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time”
finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-26 08:15:03)

chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

IRONCHEF wrote:

Eat THAT Brady douchebags!!!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 07-290.pdf

Wow, just read about 20 pages.  Finally, this court does something right!  But i still can't believe 4 of them think the 2A pertains to the militia...  But whatever.  It is finalized...the 2A is truly meant to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.  It is an "ancient" right to protect oneself with firearms says Scalia.  i would have said it's inalienable, but that's cool.
Why can't you believe they think it pertains to a militia rather than individuals? It actually says "militia" in the second amendment, but doesn't mention individuals at all.
JahManRed
wank
+646|7050|IRELAND

I used to be all for gun control in the USA.

Now I have changed my mind. They way things are going, the US militia might be what saves us all some day soon..............
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California

chittydog wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Eat THAT Brady douchebags!!!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 07-290.pdf

Wow, just read about 20 pages.  Finally, this court does something right!  But i still can't believe 4 of them think the 2A pertains to the militia...  But whatever.  It is finalized...the 2A is truly meant to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.  It is an "ancient" right to protect oneself with firearms says Scalia.  i would have said it's inalienable, but that's cool.
Why can't you believe they think it pertains to a militia rather than individuals? It actually says "militia" in the second amendment, but doesn't mention individuals at all.
Have you actually read the decision?

Scalia's opinion even explains how the two are seperate..the militia is a purpose, the second part is the operative part..the way the majority of americans see it as evidenced in countless polling. 
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
...
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms,
so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.


The 2A is best written as:
The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

IRONCHEF wrote:

chittydog wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Eat THAT Brady douchebags!!!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 07-290.pdf

Wow, just read about 20 pages.  Finally, this court does something right!  But i still can't believe 4 of them think the 2A pertains to the militia...  But whatever.  It is finalized...the 2A is truly meant to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.  It is an "ancient" right to protect oneself with firearms says Scalia.  i would have said it's inalienable, but that's cool.
Why can't you believe they think it pertains to a militia rather than individuals? It actually says "militia" in the second amendment, but doesn't mention individuals at all.
Have you actually read the decision?

Scalia's opinion even explains how the two are seperate..the militia is a purpose, the second part is the operative part..the way the majority of americans see it as evidenced in countless polling. 
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
...
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms,
so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.


The 2A is best written as:
The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
I see what you mean, but all of that is still in Scalia's interpretation of it, not in the actual Constitution. As was stated above, the SC had never conclusively interpreted it. With no official ruling, all we had was the text in the Constitution, which mentions militia, but not individuals.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California
Sadly (in general), Scalia's lead opinion, as adopted by the majority of SCOTUS justices, IS now how the 2A is interpreted.  So yes, one could say the Supreme Court is in the actual constitution.  And to be honest, it IS in the constitution.  And no, the SC hasn't interpreted the 2A since it was created in 1791.  This is long overdue ever since the wild west gun toting days disappeared.

"The right of the people" in the amendments to the constitution is actually individual.  So yes, it does say it's an individual right.  Read a few pages and you'll see clearly how.  The Bill of Rights, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and more are all individual, not collective rights.  For example, the right of an individual to protest is not infringed..it would be ludicrous to think that only a group of protestors should be protected, screwing the individual.  4th amendment protection against illegal search and seizure...individual right..otherwise, police could enter my home at will and search and seize my belongings because I'm alone..and not in a group of citizens.  Does that make sense?

The right to keep and bear arms is assumed for the righting of the 2nd amendment.  That's what this ruling clarifies.  It is officially the law of the land that I, myself, have the right to keep and bear arms...especially since I'm of age in California to be considered conscripted militia (18-49 years of age and male).  When I'm 50 and no longer "conscriptable" I will still have that assumed right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure how to better clarify things.  There really is no argument.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-26 09:10:07)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Am I wrong to assume that it is still the States right to determine certain gun control legislation (per states constitution)? Assuming it doesn't infringe upon the right for an individual to own a gun?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

IRONCHEF wrote:

There really is no argument.
I agree and wasn't trying to argue, just help you see why they might think that way. Personally, I always interpreted it the same way as you.

Kmarion wrote:

Am I wrong to assume that it is still the States right to determine certain gun control legislation (per states constitution)? Assuming it doesn't infringe upon the right for an individual to own a gun?
I think you're right. If Idaho bans assault rifles, its residents are still able to keep and bear arms. In this day and age, there has to be a line drawn with this right. In 1791, they didn't have RPGs, grenades, tanks, nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, landmines, .50 cal machines guns, etc. Since we do, we have to come up with solid criteria for which ones we can/can't have and why.

Last edited by chittydog (2008-06-26 09:27:27)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California

Kmarion wrote:

Am I wrong to assume that it is still the States right to determine certain gun control legislation (per states constitution)? Assuming it doesn't infringe upon the right for an individual to own a gun?
Absolutely.  But since most states, including Illinois, New York, California, etc...all have in their state constitutions that they uphold/follow the US constitution.  SO basically, in California, things should be repealed immediately...especially cases where decisions were met upholding that the 2A was a collective right. 

Now is the time to see if that gang of useless thugs at the NRA will be worth their salt and their membership dollars.  I may even join them if they can successfully control the spin going on right now by the various yaps ignoring the decision..the dc mayor, some brady people, some commentators on cnn and other sites..


chittydog wrote:

[
I think you're right. If Idaho bans assault rifles, its residents are still able to keep and bear arms. In this day and age, there has to be a line drawn with this right. In 1791, they didn't have RPGs, grenades, tanks, nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, landmines, .50 cal machines guns, etc. Since we do, we have to come up with solid criteria for which ones we can/can't have and why.
The language in the ruling/opinion actually upholds the Miller ruling saying:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not


.50 cal rifles, full auto weapons, etc...would all be lawful and common use today..not the muskets and kentucky rifles of the 18th century.  Yes, explosives (nades, nukes, rpgs, etc) would not be safe or common by the individual for hunting or self protection.  Bans on assault rifles seem moot at this point..even tec 9s and other federal assault ban type weapons.  M-16s?  maybe, since they're actually a military only design.  AR-15s?  Absolutely legal.  AKs?  Good to go..as are their variants.  nothing is more common in the WORLD than the AK.

Anyway, there's alot to be discussed and decided...my points are only my opinion based on the ruling...lawyers will win the day.  Heller to 2A supporters was NOT meant to be the end of things...just the first step..INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective.  This could easily go both ways, though this momentum from this decision will considerably help since Scalia's opinion has several seriously large landmines in it aimed at the anti-gun lobby they won't be able to get around.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-26 09:39:28)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7022|132 and Bush

Concealment laws would be legislated by the state as well. I guess.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7022|132 and Bush

IRONCHEF wrote:

This is long overdue ever since the wild west gun toting days disappeared.
Hasn't Hollywood taught us anything ? Remember those westerns that told us no guns were allowed in town?

Oddly enough it was Georgia that first banned handguns. .. well tried to at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California

Kmarion wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

This is long overdue ever since the wild west gun toting days disappeared.
Hasn't Hollywood taught us anything ? Remember those westerns that told us no guns were allowed in town?

Oddly enough it was Georgia that first banned handguns. .. well tried to at least.
You mean Tombstone, AZ?  Which still has it's ban on guns in town.  maybe it'll be overruled finally?


Kmarion wrote:

Concealment laws would be legislated by the state as well. I guess.
In the decision, I think Scalia left that one to the wind as indirectly not protected.  Directly, it's a right to defend oneself..not to carry concealed.  It's kind of a wash as I see it.  +1 that an individual will be able to get permits more easily (in CA particularly), but -1 because it can't be honored by some new laws using Scalias words out of context saying "he said concealed carry is not protected!" lol

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-26 09:43:48)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7022|132 and Bush

IRONCHEF wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

This is long overdue ever since the wild west gun toting days disappeared.
Hasn't Hollywood taught us anything ? Remember those westerns that told us no guns were allowed in town?

Oddly enough it was Georgia that first banned handguns. .. well tried to at least.
You mean Tombstone, AZ?  Which still has it's ban on guns in town.  maybe it'll be overruled finally?
Really?.. I didn't know that. It's nice to see that the O.K. Corral lives on..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

IRONCHEF wrote:

chittydog wrote:

I think you're right. If Idaho bans assault rifles, its residents are still able to keep and bear arms. In this day and age, there has to be a line drawn with this right. In 1791, they didn't have RPGs, grenades, tanks, nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, landmines, .50 cal machines guns, etc. Since we do, we have to come up with solid criteria for which ones we can/can't have and why.
The language in the ruling/opinion actually upholds the Miller ruling saying:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not


.50 cal rifles, full auto weapons, etc...would all be lawful and common use today..not the muskets and kentucky rifles of the 18th century.  Yes, explosives (nades, nukes, rpgs, etc) would not be safe or common by the individual for hunting or self protection.  Bans on assault rifles seem moot at this point..even tec 9s and other federal assault ban type weapons.  M-16s?  maybe, since they're actually a military only design.  AR-15s?  Absolutely legal.  AKs?  Good to go..as are their variants.  nothing is more common in the WORLD than the AK.

Anyway, there's alot to be discussed and decided...my points are only my opinion based on the ruling...lawyers will win the day.  Heller to 2A supporters was NOT meant to be the end of things...just the first step..INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective.  This could easily go both ways, though this momentum from this decision will considerably help since Scalia's opinion has several seriously large landmines in it aimed at the anti-gun lobby they won't be able to get around.
If the .50 cals are legal, there's no reason the M16s shouldn't be if they're used by the militia. Grenades are commonly used by the military as well as body armor (when they can get it) and artillery. I'm not advocating taking away weapons, just a definitive judgement on what's legal. I think Scalia's wording "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes" isn't terribly clear.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6913|Northern California
M16 is actually a military designation.  It's a configuration made by the Military so the public wouldn't have it.  That's what's in the ruling and established at length in the Miller ruling and related rulings.  The average citizen would be protected in having weaponry that matches the m16, like ARs.  .50 cal rifles are not a military only configuration.  They have their own in the m82a1 and some others, but citizens can recreate them just as they do with the ARs.  AKs...are free game.

The "dangerous or unusual" part of the ruling is what I was talking about that would continue to prohibit the use of grenades, artilery, nukes, etc from possession/use of the individual as pertaining to this ruling and others.  It is clear what was considered common use, dangerous or common..in light of the unclear meaning of the 2A (collective vs. individual)..but now that it's an individual right, some rulings may change..not sure which though.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6605|Ireland

chittydog wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Eat THAT Brady douchebags!!!
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 07-290.pdf

Wow, just read about 20 pages.  Finally, this court does something right!  But i still can't believe 4 of them think the 2A pertains to the militia...  But whatever.  It is finalized...the 2A is truly meant to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.  It is an "ancient" right to protect oneself with firearms says Scalia.  i would have said it's inalienable, but that's cool.
Why can't you believe they think it pertains to a militia rather than individuals? It actually says "militia" in the second amendment, but doesn't mention individuals at all.
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.

Please note how it say's the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

not the rights of the states, not the rights of the military, not the rights of organizations.......

Everything up to the comma doesn't even need to be in the amendment as it is just stating WHY - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  which is what they were guaranteeing.

The Liberals, Media, and Moron Judges are the only ones that find something this simple so confusing, and they do it on purpose to misrepresent facts.

All this ruling proved was that 4 of the 9 top judges in the US can't read and comprehend english, which is what they were hired to do.  Those Judges should be impeached now for being complete tools that endanger our rights and lives.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-06-26 10:21:25)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|7073|USA
Forgive me, but I didn't know we needed a ruling on something that was ALREADY a right in our Constitution.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6605|Ireland

lowing wrote:

Forgive me, but I didn't know we needed a ruling on something that was ALREADY a right in our Constitution.
You do when you are charged for excercising that right in D.C.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7043|London, England
Well your Govt has already violated alot of your constitutional rights. This seems to be the only one Americans care about/bothered to do something about.

I'll tell you why, because I know you guys don't really give a shit about your country and all that malarky. You guys just want to be able to shoot things/animals when you're bored, and brag about guns and shit to your friends/internet etc.. it's a "man" thing.

Now I'm not complaining or anything, so don't respond by refuting me. I'm just saying what I see. If you guys really cares about the whole militia shit you would've done something a long time ago. That's just the easy argument put forth. I'd probably do the same thing.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6605|Ireland

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Well your Govt has already violated alot of your constitutional rights. This seems to be the only one Americans care about/bothered to do something about.

I'll tell you why, because I know you guys don't really give a shit about your country and all that malarky. You guys just want to be able to shoot things/animals when you're bored, and brag about guns and shit to your friends/internet etc.. it's a "man" thing.

Now I'm not complaining or anything, so don't respond by refuting me. I'm just saying what I see. If you guys really cares about the whole militia shit you would've done something a long time ago. That's just the easy argument put forth. I'd probably do the same thing.
I believe this post is why my forefathers left england, well that and for better dental care.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7043|London, England
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6868|Chicago, IL
yeehaw!

https://wiw.org/~jess/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/texan1.gif

The Dailey (our current Mayor) machine is panicking all over TV right now, they know their gun bans are going to get challenged now...
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6605|Ireland

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard