SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[Tchocky]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

[JetSnake]

Keep them? They never would have been able to take them.

[SUBMAN1]

What this does is screw Washington DC's ban on firearms.

It also brings into question the National Firearms Act and its legality. We may once again be able to own machine guns like we rightfully should. Not to say that a citizen couldn't own one now, but it had to be made prior to the 1986 ban, and they are extremely expensive. $12K for an M-16 last time I checked.

-S

PS. All the Brady idiots just lost a job.

[Tchocky]

However, Scalia was careful not to strike down all gun laws. "The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," Scalia wrote. Additionally, he said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, 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." Licensing requirements were also held to be constitutional.from salon

[SUBMAN1]

McCain on the subject:

John McCain issued the following statement regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

[SUBMAN1]

However, Scalia was careful not to strike down all gun laws. "The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," Scalia wrote. Additionally, he said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, 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." Licensing requirements were also held to be constitutional.from salonYep. Sawed off shotguns would be considered unusual. No real need for a sawed off shotgun.
No one makes one like that either, and if they do, it would be a rarity.

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

-S

PS. A sawed off shotgun may even be in question:

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

[SUBMAN1]

I should point out here -

This is a Great Day for America!!!

:up::up::up: :D :p

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

[danurve]

I would thank the 5 that helped and voted with common sence.

To the 4 that voted against I would wish their genitals to be infested with 1000 swamp leeches.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Molon_labe.jpg/300px-Molon_labe.jpg

[mrbeast]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

[August]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.
What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

Because you shouldn't keep it in your garage when you aren't shooting it?

[Sea Demon]

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S


Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.
I guess it's a matter of picking which part of the Bill of Rights you'd prefer to have "flushed down the crapper".

PD

[JetSnake]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

[Sea Demon]

I guess it's a matter of picking which part of the Bill of Rights you'd prefer to have "flushed down the crapper".

PD
Most of us don't want any part of the Bill of Rights flushed. What most of us really don't appreciate is liberal activists writing things into the Constitution that don't exist. Things like "a woman's right to kill her unborn children"...illegal aliens "right to U.S. taxpayer funded education" and other benefits....and homosexual activists "right to homosexual marriage".

[PeriscopeDepth]

Are there efforts to put those into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that.

I fear I may have steered this thread OT for good. :damn:

PD

[mrbeast]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.

[SUBMAN1]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.
What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Are there efforts to put those into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that.

I fear I may have steered this thread OT for good. :damn:

PD

Oh yes. I guess you don't read much. Judgements from courts dominated by liberal minded activists have been handing out judgements like these for years. In fact, the California Supreme Court just recently perveted constitutional law with homosexual marriages. And my California state taxes are going to pay for education and benefits for illegal aliens because these same courts said that it was "constitutional" for me to do so. I guess some people want to pretend these things don't happen.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Are there efforts to put those into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that.

I fear I may have steered this thread OT for good. :damn:

PD
Oh yes. I guess you don't read much. Judgements from courts dominated by liberal minded activists have been handing out judgements like these for years. In fact, the California Supreme Court just recently perveted constitutional law with homosexual marriages. And my California state taxes are going to pay for education and benefits for illegal aliens because these same courts said that it was "constitutional" for me to do so. I guess some people want to pretend these things don't happen.
I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD

[Sea Demon]

I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD
Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. Their votes to give terrorists on foreign soil the same rights as U.S. citizens...meaning more rights than our own military personnel. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD
Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely. You need to learn to reply to posts and frame an argument without calling people that post something you disagree with ignorant. I didn't even disagree with you, all I did was point out the Bill of Rights takes hits from both sides of the political spectrum. This is the second time you have done this to me, in what, a week?

There's nothing like subsituting thinking with unwavering belief, bull**** rhetoric, and insults, eh?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. Their votes to give terrorists on foreign soil the same rights as U.S. citizens...meaning more rights than our own military personnel. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.Those are some very true words.

-S

[mrbeast]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.
What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.


Five years ago Switzerland was shocked when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with his army rifle, before turning the gun on himself.
In the first half of 2006 there were at least six incidents where a man shot his wife or partner before turning the gun on himself. In a highly publicised case the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother and seriously injuring her mother with his army pistol before killing himself.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/detail/Army_weapons_kill_300_people_a_year.html?siteSect= 881&sid=7357024&cKey=1166366897000

[SUBMAN1]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.
What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S
Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

Five years ago Switzerland was shocked when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with his army rifle, before turning the gun on himself.
In the first half of 2006 there were at least six incidents where a man shot his wife or partner before turning the gun on himself. In a highly publicised case the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother and seriously injuring her mother with his army pistol before killing himself.
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/detail/Army_weapons_kill_300_people_a_year.html?siteSect= 881&sid=7357024&cKey=1166366897000
Big whoop! 300. So what? These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

-S

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

[Skybird]

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S


Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

And TV comment from Swiss TV on German-Austrian-Swiss 3Sat program just broadcasted this evening said that the study was saying that per year 30.000 people get killed by firearms.

[SUBMAN1]

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.
Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.Only when their are liberals on it. The liberals seem to vote away the Consitution, the conservatives seem to uphold it. Right now, it is not biased (unless you count biased towards the law of the land - namely the Constitution) until the liberals outweigh the conservatives.

It works like this -

Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution).

Liberals vote for what they personally think the people should have. That is why the words of liberal activists are in this thread.

See the problem?

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.
Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.Only when their are liberals on it. The liberals seem to vote away the Consitution, the conservatives seem to uphold it. Right now, it is not biased (unless you count biased towards the law of the land - namely the Constitution) until the liberals outweigh the conservatives.

It works like this -

Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution).

Liberals vote for what they personally think the people should have. That is why the words of liberal activists are in this thread.

See the problem?

-S Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PDLets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S

PS. And that was a highly liberal activists view, which has led to our gay marriage fiascos now. :p

[PeriscopeDepth]

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PDLets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S Of course not, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution.

See the problem?

PD

[JetSnake]

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.


I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.

[mrbeast]

Big whoop! 300.

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

So what?

Nice attitude you have to people being killed;)

These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:


PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/Why_is_Switzerland_prone_to_family_killings.html?s iteSect=105&sid=6680267&cKey=1146687704000&ty=st

[SUBMAN1]

Of course, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. Just wondering.

PDLets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution? Case closed.

[SUBMAN1]

I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.I know where to get you a T-72. Will that work? Comes complete with 125 mm cannon.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Big whoop! 300.
out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

So what?
Nice attitude you have to people being killed;)

These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.
Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:


PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.
Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/Why_is_Switzerland_prone_to_family_killings.html?s iteSect=105&sid=6680267&cKey=1146687704000&ty=st
But you're missing the point once again - The UK, when it had guns or not, had a murder rate that was a fraction of the rest of the world. This is normal for you guys. And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point! Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Talking with children again.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Of course, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. Just wondering.

PDLets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution? According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.

[SUBMAN1]

According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.Lets analyze it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I am not arguing that it is in the Constitution!

I am simply pointing out that a Conservative SCOTUS does not always deliver decisions that uphold the Constitution.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

So SCOTUS in my opinion should have dropped this case and left it to the state of TX.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

-S Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

-S Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PDWhat exactly is not truth?

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

-S Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PDWhat exactly is not truth?

-S
Taken to PMs, this is one hell of a tangent. Sorry folks.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Taken to PMs, this is one hell of a tangent. Sorry folks.

PDIts not best left to PM. Anyway, I agree - a tangent. Done with it.

-S

[mrbeast]

And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point!

Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Talking with children again.

-S

Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point!
Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p
Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Talking with children again.

-S
Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging. ;)No - any rational mind would see that the Swiss have similar rates to you, and that your irrational mind blames their higher rates on an inanimate object - this is actually a sickness, but that's best left for another thread.

There is no mud slinging - just that you are obviously inexperienced in the world. Trying to explain something to someone of your age is like hitting ones head against the wall - you just won't get it no matter how many times I explain till you hit your 30's+.

-S

[August]

You guys can't compare the murder rates in two different countries as an argument for or against gun ownership. There are too many variables that can effect the numbers.

[SUBMAN1]

You guys can't compare the murder rates in two different countries as an argument for or against gun ownership. There are too many variables that can effect the numbers.Thank you August. Some sense in here for once.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

For Immediate Release


Contact: Senator Karen S. Johnson (602-926-3160)
Contact: Alan Korwin (Bloomfield Press – 602-996-4020)

Senator Karen Johnson Praises Lifting of D.C. Gun Ban

Senator Karen S. Johnson applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today which overturned the D.C. gun ban. Last winter, Johnson signed on to an amicus brief of women state legislators who supported overturning the ban and restoring Second Amendment rights to the residents of the District of Columbia. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought before the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. “This is fundamental,” said Johnson. “Everyone has the right to own a handgun and to defend themselves in their home. The D.C. ban was unconstitutional.”

In addition to lifting the ban on possessing handguns, the court decision overturns the requirement that guns kept in the home be unloaded or inoperable at all times, even in cases of self-defense, and rejects every argument posed by the District of Columbia in favor of the ban. “What a fabulous victory!” says Johnson. “This decision spells the death of city bans on handgun owenrship all over the country.”

Many cities besides the District of Columbia ban possession and ownership of handguns – Chicago and New York among them. “I understand that gun rights activists in Illinois are already preparing a legal campaign to overturn the ban in Chicago and other Illinois cities. More power to them! These bans do more harm than good,” said Johnson. “Violent crime typically goes down when people are allowed to defend themselves. Criminals aren’t stupid. They are less likely to commit a violent crime if they think someone can stand up to them. Statistics bear that out.”

The Heller case is expected to be analyzed for decades for its implications and ramifications. “This case will have a far-reaching impact on gun laws throughout the country,” predicted Johnson. “We are waiting for an analysis from our expert, Alan Korwin, of Bloomfield Press, who is preparing a book on the Heller case,” said Johnson. Korwin announced yesterday he would have an initial review of the case ready for release today. “Typically news reports on gun issues have errors, spin, and editorial mixed in with fact and should be taken with at least a grain of skepticism until detailed analysis is available,” said Korwin, who is a national spokesman on gun issues and specializes in publishing books on gun laws and Second Amendment rights. He expects to provide that detailed analysis within a few weeks.

[SUBMAN1]

This is also interesting:

Justice Scalia wrote:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

-S

[Wolfehunter]

Congradz for the American people on this major victory.:up: Cool to see some officials have common senses too.;)

[Sailor Steve]

I hate it when I come late to these things. Where to start, where to start?

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.
In case you didn't know it, America's Revolution started when the Governor of Massachussetts sent soldiers to confiscate the contents of a privately owned armory. It was full of cannons and such. That's why the shooting started in the first place. Also, most of the Revolutionary War (and the War of 1812 for that matter), at least the "at sea" part, was fought by privateers - citizens with their own armed ships, granted 'Letters of Marque' by the government, because they had most of the guns. The Second Amendment exists because the citizens didn't want to trust the government with the guns, not the other way around.

[Sailor Steve]

I guess it's a matter of picking which part of the Bill of Rights you'd prefer to have "flushed down the crapper".

PD
Most of us don't want any part of the Bill of Rights flushed. What most of us really don't appreciate is liberal activists writing things into the Constitution that don't exist. Things like "a woman's right to kill her unborn children"...illegal aliens "right to U.S. taxpayer funded education" and other benefits....and homosexual activists "right to homosexual marriage".
At the risk of going off-topic, I have to disagree with these sentiments. All of these are unfair for anyone to mention here, simply because they deserve their own discussions, and I would be glad to discuss them in the proper context.

I will say that all of those are open to debate, if for no other reason than that the Constitution doesn't guarantee ANY rights, to anyone. That was why there was such a strong argument over ratification. James Madison, 'The Father Of The Constitution', didn't want a Bill of Rights at all. He felt that any listing of rights would cause someone down the line to say something like "writing things into the Constitution that don't exist", when, as the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

The whole point is that the people retain ALL rights, not just the ones you or I like.

As Thomas Jefferson said: "The policy of the American government is to have its citizens free, neither resisting them nor aiding them in their pursuits."

[Molon Labe]

I normally stay out of the GT forum here, but considering my SN, I think I'll make an exception for this thread. :cool:

I think some in this thread have been relying too much on loose speculation in the media about what this ruling means and how far it will go. The Court didn't lay down a standard by which other laws can be judged. We only know two things from this decision: (1) that laws essentially identical to the two struck down in DC will likely suffer the same fate, and (2) what the scope of the 2nd Amendment protection is and is not.

Consider these passages:
We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia]service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same."

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, would would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that possessed at home to militia duty. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. [citations omitted]

Sorry, folks, but the Court is saying that the "arms" protected are those in ordinary use by civilians, and it is strongly implied that the M-16 is not such a weapon. Any expectation that NFA34 or similar laws are in danger of being overturned flies in the face of the opinion.

Issues of expectations aside, I find this quite troubling. If not for NFA34, weapons such as the M-16 would be in ordinary use by civilians today. The Court's way of defining "arms" allows the tail to wag the dog. All the government has to do to ban other weapons in the future to target weapons not in ordinary use (perhaps .50cal rifles) or to regulate certain weapons with restrictions such that most people stop using them, making the weapons eligible to be banned.

[August]

Issues of expectations aside, I find this quite troubling. If not for NFA34, weapons such as the M-16 would be in ordinary use by civilians today. The Court's way of defining "arms" allows the tail to wag the dog. All the government has to do to ban other weapons in the future to target weapons not in ordinary use (perhaps .50cal rifles) or to regulate certain weapons with restrictions such that most people stop using them, making the weapons eligible to be banned.

Possibly, but what defines ordinary use? Would not hunting, or home defense, or shooting competitions, or vermin control, or even backyard target plinking qualify as an ordinary civilian use?

[Molon Labe]

Issues of expectations aside, I find this quite troubling. If not for NFA34, weapons such as the M-16 would be in ordinary use by civilians today. The Court's way of defining "arms" allows the tail to wag the dog. All the government has to do to ban other weapons in the future to target weapons not in ordinary use (perhaps .50cal rifles) or to regulate certain weapons with restrictions such that most people stop using them, making the weapons eligible to be banned.
Possibly, but what defines ordinary use? Would not hunting, or home defense, or shooting competitions, or vermin control, or even backyard target plinking qualify as an ordinary civilian use?

I apologize, the correct term was "common use," not "ordinary use." There is room for interpretation as to what is "common" and what is not, but Justice Scalia has all but declared that the M-16 is not in common use. So the few people that pay the draconian taxes and own them in states that allow them too is apparently not enough to make any of those uses "common" enough for the weapon to be protected.

[August]

I apologize, the correct term was "common use," not "ordinary use." There is room for interpretation as to what is "common" and what is not, but Justice Scalia has all but declared that the M-16 is not in common use. So the few people that pay the draconian taxes and own them in states that allow them too is apparently not enough to make any of those uses "common" enough for the weapon to be protected.

But then I'd think that any firearm could then suffer the same fate, right down to the old rifled muskets.

All the government has to do to get around the 2nd Amendment is to simply place prohibitive taxes on a particular weapon or class of weapons in order to make their use "uncommon" enough not be protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[Molon Labe]

I apologize, the correct term was "common use," not "ordinary use." There is room for interpretation as to what is "common" and what is not, but Justice Scalia has all but declared that the M-16 is not in common use. So the few people that pay the draconian taxes and own them in states that allow them too is apparently not enough to make any of those uses "common" enough for the weapon to be protected.
But then I'd think that any firearm could then suffer the same fate, right down to the old rifled muskets.

All the government has to do to get around the 2nd Amendment is to simply place prohibitive taxes on a particular weapon or class of weapons in order to make their use "uncommon" enough not be protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Yep. Wasn't a very good way to define the term, was it?

[Tchocky]

Response from Obama, courtesy of Marc Ambinders blog at The Atlantic

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. “As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

[Molon Labe]

Response from Obama, courtesy of Marc Ambinders blog at The Atlantic

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. “As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

That's pretty funny. Obama never saw a gun law he didn't like--including the DC gun ban that was declared unconstitutional. Keep in mind, the reason the Court did not articulate a rule for lower courts to apply in 2nd Amendment cases was because the DC ban would fail under ANY rule. So the only 2nd Amendment Obama believes in is one what is worth exactly nothing.

He's just trying to appear to be a centrist on the issue, despite his extremist record.

[seafarer]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”


Back to the original news item of the thread....

I'm wondering though how this practically plays out? I mean, there are no FFL gun stores in D.C., so not only is there nowhere to buy a new gun, but you can't go to Maryland or Virginia either, since there is no FFL dealer to send it to in order to get it into D.C.? Prior to the ban the ruling stuck down, D.C. also had some of the most stringent restrictions of gun store licensing requirements in the nation, so it may be financially pretty tough to successfully run a gun shop in D.C. And didn't they require a pre-purchase permit or something, like N. Carolina's pistol permits (or maybe I'm confusing that with something else).

I'm just wondering, as I watch these folks on the t.v. news saying how happy they are with the ruling now that they can go out and buy their gun(s) for home defense, but how? Even an ATF agent was quoted in Wall St. Journal as saying he didn't see how they could, not until at least one FFL licensed dealer opens shop within D.C.

Or maybe that will be the first way to do it? Someone gets an FFL but without a physical full service store location and just acts as an agent for purchases made out of D.C.? Or does D.C. have some way to prohibit that (eg. city ordnance precludes operating such a business out of a non-commercial physical store location, or some such local restrictions).

Regardless of the ruling, I'm just pondering how much this actually changes things for people in D.C., from a practical POV (I find D.C. a confusing entity, since it is a city without a state and all).

[August]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?

[seafarer]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?

If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

[August]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?
If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

[seafarer]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?
If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html).

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers). Federal Law mandates that the way such sales are supposed to be done is you pay for the handgun at the out of state dealer, but he/she must ship it directly to another FFL dealer in your state of residence, where you will then go, have your NICS background check done (and meet all local and state requirements) and then finally receive your handgun. The local FFL dealer will of course charge some nominal fee (it's usually not very much) for handling the transaction for you.

[seafarer]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?
If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html).

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers).

But, 10 years ago I wasn't even living in the US, so maybe it was different then?

[August]

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html).

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers). Federal Law mandates that the way such sales are supposed to be done is you pay for the handgun at the out of state dealer, but he/she must ship it directly to another FFL dealer in your state of residence, where you will then go, have your NICS background check done (and meet all local and state requirements) and then finally receive your handgun. The local FFL dealer will of course charge some nominal fee (it's usually not very much) for handling the transaction for you.

Thank you. Apparently i did not purchase my handgun illegally:

Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006.

I bought mine in the mid 1990s.

[SUBMAN1]

I apologize, the correct term was "common use," not "ordinary use." There is room for interpretation as to what is "common" and what is not, but Justice Scalia has all but declared that the M-16 is not in common use. So the few people that pay the draconian taxes and own them in states that allow them too is apparently not enough to make any of those uses "common" enough for the weapon to be protected.Quite the contrary. The M-16 has millions in use - not even thousands - millions! And i bet there are are least 100K in civi hands out there - fully automatic!

And if you read the 2nd A, you will see that it specifically calls out what guns are in military use, which means we should have access to M-16's if we want.

Anyway on another subject, I figured you Brits would get a kick out of this:

During World War II, many NRA members sent their privately owned firearms to the people of England to help defend against the Nazi onslaught. This effort was necessary because the British populace had been disarmed by Draconian gun control laws.
-S

PS. i find this interesting too:

A survey of prison inmates indicated that only 0.7% had obtained their firearms from gun shows. ("Firearm Use by Offenders," Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2000)

[Molon Labe]

I hope you're right. But J. Scalia's opinion pointed out the M-16 in particular as something that might be banned under the standard he articulared.