GUN OWNERS WIN IN THE SUPREME COURT
Posted June 26th, 2008 by dcarter9
output
ruling is that DC gun laws struck down and gun ownership is an individual right not conditional on membership in a militia!
http://www.scotusblog.com...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Gun? SCOTUS says NO, not yours
To paraphrase the Soup Nazi, "No gun for YOU!!"
Say, remember that recent Supreme Court ruling that said, yes, it's okay to own a gun in D.C.?
That case was referred to as the "Heller" case, because a guy named Dick Heller was the plaintiff in the case.
Here's a story from today about Heller. Guess what: D.C. won't allow him to register his gun. Excerpt:
And in case you missed it, I posted yesterday about officers taking possession of guns when people bring 'em in for registration.
Follow-Up re: Guns in D.C.
District Gun Registration Starts Tomorrow (article dated 7/16/08)
Excerpt (note the part about officers taking possession of your guns):
---
An officer from the gun unit will meet the applicant at the door and take temporary possession of the gun to ensure safety at headquarters.
Officers will tag the gun and run ballistics tests before returning it to the owner. Paperwork indicating that registration is in process will be provided.
About 14 days later, after an FBI background check, the gun will be officially registered.
---
"Tag the gun" means...what? And does this mean that the gun is held in possession by the officers for the entire waiting period? Or?
blah, blah, guns being confiscated, blah, blah
Last try to see whether anyone is aware of or cares about D.C.'s response to SCOTUS' "Sure, you can own guns" ruling...
Kinky! Rice & W wrestle in $70 oil during lunch to debunk 9/11!
Yeah, not really. Just wanted to see if you had a chance to read the follow-up (in comment above) to the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling re: guns in D.C., and how they are planning to confiscate guns for an (evidently) unclear period of time.
Didja notice that?
Not the "shall not be infringed"..read carefully..
they can still get your guns if you read it a little more carefully...BIG smoke screen..wait and see..
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master... George Washington
Re: Not the "shall not be infringed"......
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master... George Washington
That's why the founders gave government its place. Like a fire, it needs to be maintained and kept in its place. We call it a fire place. Let it out of its place and it will run around like a raging lunatic quickly climbing up your drapes, walls, devouring all, until it consumes all, then can no longer even feed itself.
-LIMITED POWERS- ARE THE KEY TO SOUND GOVERNMENT
I saw many places that represented potential
weakness in the "shall not be infringed" portion of the decision. Was there a particular section that you found most disturbing? Best regards.
32 years
Only took 32 years to strike down this stupid law. Man they right unconstitutional laws faster than they can be strike them down. We are hosed.
This is complete nightmare!
Opened the door wide open to restrict(not ban) guns by government. read the ruling carefully! devils are in detail.
Indeed
People need to read the fine print.
YES!!!! I'm beginning to feel there is some hope!
Here's an article on it if anyone's interested!
http://www.comcast.net/ar...
If you're a Nevada delegate or know someone who is, click here!!
http://nevadagopconventio...
Historic moment at WA State Convention at minute 4 here!!
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Convert a delegate here! www.dvds4delegates.com
power to license is the power to take away a god givin right!
give me liberty or give me death!
They did not address the licensing requirement
question in the opinion, other than to say:
"Brief for Petitioners
58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75.
We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license
will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement." pg. 59
I concur in your assertion, however, that the failure of the court to address the issue of licensing represents a "beacon" of sorts for those who will continue to attempt to further restrict gun ownership.
cmon really a win????
what does shall not be infringed mean to you?who decides who can and cant protect thier family?if i got caught with 1 single joint or a fake id (for drinking) that would stop me from protecting my fam!!! get a dictionary and a constitution w bill of rights,then compare them.You may see that there is no right for them to stop felons that have served their det to society can we have our LIBERTY or not???
Absolutely a win
You have a limited number of outcomes (two, unless you want to play lawyer word games). They either uphold the DC law or strike it down. They held with the appeals court and struck it down. I'm not jumping for joy and we all know the fight is far from over, but this one goes in the W column. If you want to flame me for pulling little positives out of the cesspool that our American experience has become, go for it. But obsessing on the negative will only bring negativity to your life. That is not a judgement, it is a fact.
Unfortunately, I think you're entirely correct in that, through
the use of other statutes and perceived ancilliary forms of behavior, they can still disqualify individuals from rights recognized under the 2nd amendment. The majority opinion took note of such laws. As stated in the court's opinion, the 2nd Amendment itself did *not* establish a right; it recognized and forbade the government from infringing on an individual right that already existed, prior to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. The right to defend one's self against violence is a fundamental right of human existence on this earth. They left open, for the future, the potential for varying degrees of restriction by way of various licensing and use statutes, so that part is very troubling.
madison vs. malbury
if the justices rule contradictory to the constitution ,they are just lawyers and T Jefferson said to kill the gov that oppresses our G D givin rights on a long line of oppression and tyranny!
I certainly agree with that principle in
Marbury v. Madison [5 U.S. 137 (1803)], as applied by Thomas Jefferson. I wish that the court had made a simple and straightforward statement that:
1. The right to keep and bear arms was not *originated* by the 2nd Amendment.
2. The 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infinging on a natural, inherent and inalienable right of individuals that existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution; a right considered to be so important that, rather than recognizing it and protecting it through a mere statute, the framers chose to give it the unalterable strength of a constitutional enactment.
Although I have no inside facts to establish my suspicion, I cannot help but wonder if the opinion was not specifically crafted to go as far as possible without running the risk of losing justice Kennedy's vote in order to form a majority. I have no facts in that regard, only my suspicions.
Mexican Military in Arizona...
This ruling couldn't have come a more perfect time. For those of you who live in Phoenix AZ, you may have heard this today...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday night, close to midnight, police were called to a home on W. Cypress Street because of a shooting. There they found Andrew Williams dead after having been shot numerous times. More than 100 rounds of various calibers were used in the attack.
Phoenix police arresed three suspects after a short car chase. The suspects discarded numerous assault rifles and handguns, tactical gear (including Kevlar helmets, bulletproof vests and kneepads) and plenty of ammo.
One suspect, Daniel Garcia-Saenz is an American citizen who spent five years in jail for kidnapping another charges. Phoenix police are confirming to Ankarlo Mornings Garcia-Saenz moved to Mexico upon his release from jail where he may have picked up some military training. He has told police he received the training south of the border. Police are working to confirm…
The other suspects, Manual Garcia-Trejom and Rodolfo Madrigal Lopez are Mexican nationals who had already been deported for criminal activity. Obviously, it wasn’t hard for them to sneak back in.
Phoenix police also confirm they are working with ICE and officials in Mexico to obtain more information. Sources tells Ankarlo Mornings, the victim, Andrew Williams was originally from Jamaica and most likely involved in the marijuana drug trade.
More details to follow…
http://ktar.net/blogs/dan...
"...assault rifles and handguns, tactical gear (including Kevlar helmets, bulletproof vests and kneepads) and plenty of ammo." And, "...military training."
I have just found out about this today. NO previous news coverage...NONE and this happened Sunday!! Get ready to defend yourselves!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We dare not forget that we are heirs of that first revolution" -JFK
H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Ac
This bill just went to the Judiciary Committee to reauthorize the assualt weapons ban, and other purposes.
http://www.govtrack.us/co...
"You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." --Andrew Jackson,
1828
With the Gun ban
DC was one of the worst in the country for violent crime. I bet it starts dropping now, knowing that people can defend themselves.
Are the laws that vague or are they...
Are the laws that vague or are they injecting their emotions and beliefs? I do not think they should have the obvious opposition(s)... If the law is clear, the opinions should be striking and not questionable... Then again, they're lawyers.
What you believe too be true, is true too you...
One important principle (danger) that Scalia's opinion
recognizes (ie: the long term result sought by the losing side) is expressed in this way: (quoting from the opinion)
"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights." (pg. 25)
And of at least equal importance:
"The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric." (pg. 25)
and
“This may be considered as the true palladium of
liberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of
nature: in most governments it has been the study of
rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits
possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the
right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any
colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not
already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
At least, in this instance, he seems to be publishing one of the dangers that, historically, has been seen in unilaterally disarming citizens.
does this mean everyone is taking their guns to the march?
i'm just kidding of course, but while we're on the subject of our right to bear arms. take a minute and send you Senator a pre-written letter concerning a bill on concealed carry reciprocity. it will make a gun permit from one state good in all states that allow their citizens the ability to carry a firearm for self defense.
http://www.gunowners.org/...
We have been having an interesting
discussion on the ramifications of this ruling on another board I frequent here
http://auburn.nu/board/
scroll down to the post "SCOTUS Affirms Heller striking down DC gun laws" and take a read. I post there as dc9.
thats not as good as it would seem ....
4 Supreme Court Justices have no fking clue what they are doing .
On another note ... hmmm... I think today I am going to pick up another ccw, possibly a PT140 .... =) ... or maybe a G30 ... damn I cant decide...lol
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
“Revolutions never go backward.”
Wendell Phillips
I so far can not find out
I so far can not find out how each of these justices voted. I did find out that there are FOUR Bush nominated judges: Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Souter. I am seriously wondering if these particular 4 judges are the ones that are voting against constitutional issues like Habeas Corpus and Guns. I can not find out so far, but any judge voting against these issues have serious credibility issues for me. I am also so happy that the first half of 2008 gave us back TWO of the Bill of Rights that we were in danger of having undermined. Shove that up your collective NWO butts, CFR..!! Like I said before, our US Constitution will and IS saving us. We the People are winning our country back as we should. Now I guess there are 7 more Rights we need reconfirmed..LOL
Very good,
I was relieved to hear this...especially after their ruling yesterday, taking away States rights to give child rapists the death penalty, I was worried that our 2nd Amendment would be next.
"We dare not forget that we are heirs of that first revolution" -JFK
The 5-4 vote, like the one
The 5-4 vote, like the one for Habeas Corpus is VERY scary. This seems like an easy vote, because the Constitution is saving us, in small ways, over and over, but WHO on that bench keeps voting against it? We need to find out if it is the same 4 that went against HB and start a campaign to get rid of them. If it is the same 4, then we will know there are some serious traitors sitting that bench.
I agree
There's one thing I have never liked about Presidents appointing judges. They always appoint those who they believe will support whatever they want to do. It's no different than if I were a contractor, and if I could get a certain person appointed to be on the city council, all of a sudden I have all sorts of contracts coming my way.
If judges are to be appointed by Presidents, then there should be no compromise on our constitutional rights. Those, out of everything else, are untouchable. Why do these people keep being allowed to touch them?
It's things like this that worry me
Our First Amendment doesn't protect our right to speak for any reason? What the hell?
And our Second Amendment doesn't protect our right to carry a gun for any sort of confrontation? Well then what does it do? Am I suppose to know that there could potentially be something bad happen today to me, before I decide I can carry a gun?
I will carry a gun for any sort of confrontation if I want. Does not mean I will use it for any sort of confrontation. But any sort of confrontation can turn ugly. A simple traffic incident has cost people their lives before, simply because they accidentally cut off the wrong person, then were killed for it.
It's crap like this, which makes me not too happy about this ruling. I feel it's really going to do nothing except simply protect handguns in the home.
I have to wonder if Scalia didn't limit the scope of this
opinion in order to capture Kennedy's vote. There is the possibility that, had he not limited his opinion, Kennedy might have bolted to the other side, in which case, the result could have been much worse. Or, at best, we could have seen a 4, 4 ,1 opinion with Kennedy concurring in a portion of the final result and writing his own concurrence limiting his agreement with the 4 who voted to either strike down the ban or the 4 who voted to uphold it.
4 of the 5, voting against the D.C. gun ban, were the
same ones who voted against habeas corpus. The 4 who voted to uphold the gun ban were 4 of the 5 who voted to uphold habeas corpus. Kennedy is the one who was in the majority in both cases. He is the swing vote. In a real sense, he is actually in a position of considerable power over both wings of the court. By joining a majority, he can limit the scope of a decision in a 5-4 vote.
I agree- see my post at the bottom!
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
I'm not celebrating yet
To me, from what I have read so far, it appears the ruling only goes so far as to really protect handguns in the house. I believe it still leaves open an assault weapons ban and many other things. They had to go and say that we can have things that were not designed for military purpose.
Well, there goes the M1 Garand, the .50 cal rifles, etc.
I think they left too much wiggle room to allow gun control groups to still attack certain weapons. I hope I'm wrong.. but I guess we'll find out when the time comes.
I haven't had time to read the entire ruling yet, but the snippets I've seen from it so far don't look like a total win for us. Only a total win for those wishing to keep a handgun in the house for self defense.
We still
We still have to be aware of the ammunition labeling bill, I don't know the name and I don't have time to look it up right now. Maybe I will revise this later. All bullets would be numbered or something like that.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Thanks for posting this
What a country. The same guys (Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia) that are in favor of taking other civil liberties away from us upheld the second amendment, or better yet, declared it NOT to be extinct. I'm going to the rifle and pistol range this afternoon.
Gil, my son and I went to
Gil,
my son and I went to the range monday... ok buddy look this up... .416 barrett! THAT WAS FUN!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
1.5 miles!
Unbelieveable! Do you own one? If so, I want to live across the valley from you!
its more accurate then the
its more accurate then the .50 bmg.. 2500 yard 1st round cold barrell hits!
costs 4.00 per round tho!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
the .460 H&H Magnum is pretty good too
and you can use it to top pine trees from a distance.
Doesn't apply to the States
FYI - it still doesn't apply to State governments.
But it is a good decision.
This is good news, because
This is good news, because the Second Amendment was next on the roster of targets from our spy law state.
This is a green light: Form your own community laws favoring gun rights!
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Makes me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
want a new Gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A great win!
+1 for those who are in favor of the constitution
you beat me to it
This is truly awesome awesome news, historic and powerful. Between this and the Texas Corridor maybe we do still have some true Americans left out there. It was a 5-4 decision though, scary. In AOL's poll over 70% of people agree with this ruling.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
That was scary- 5-4?
if these people had an understanding of the Constitution, it would have been 9-0
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips