NEW Welcome Ad

Collapse

Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms!


    Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

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

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

    The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

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

    In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
    Take care and stay safe!
    Ralph8119
    A Little Something Else For Those 60's & 70's Music Lovers On Line!
    sigpic
    http://www.myfreenetradio.com/listen70s.asx

    A Cool Website On History In Photos Of The New York City Police Department!
    http://www.policeny.com/home.html

    Policelink!
    http://policelink.monster.com/member/Ralph8119

    Inside The New York City Police Academy!
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pr/videos.shtml

  • #2
    Giggity.

    I've downloaded the 170 someodd page .pdf decision. Should be some good reading in there.
    I miss you, Dave.
    http://www.odmp.org/officer/20669-of...david-s.-moore

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CruiserClass View Post
      Giggity.

      I've downloaded the 170 someodd page .pdf decision. Should be some good reading in there.
      Pick out some good parts. I would love to hear how Alito thinks on the subject. He is one of the finest Justices we have had.

      I actually got to meet him in person. Very nice guy, really freak'in smart too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ralph8119 View Post
        In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
        I recommend that Justice Stevens read Federalists 28 and 48, and Thomas Jefferson's On Crimes and Punishment.
        "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." - Al Sharpton, March 21, 2010

        Comment


        • #5
          I’m glad that they struck this law down. However it only effects certain parts such as the right to have a firearm in the house loaded and ready to go. It doesn’t require the District to issue carry permits only premises permits. I heard on the radio all day about these anti gun people…all the shootings…all the gun fire at night in my neighborhood. What these people fail to realize is that these people shooting in the night and other stuff are those that could care less if there is a law or not. It’s pretty obvious that these thugs don’t have any type of permit to have a firearm. These people carry their guns illegally and therefore could shoot a person when entering a home to commit a robbery. This law only restricted the law abiding citizen to protect oneself if need be. If you look at other states that have strict gun laws and free or authorize a person to carry or keep in house that the crime in those states are more for the strict gun laws. The District is a prime example. All they were doing was restricting the law abiding citizen. Crime is up in the District. In VA anyone can openly carry if I am not mistaken and in TX they can openly carry as well yet the crimes per capita are lesser than the District. The quality of life will not be effected here. Crime will still go on. We just really have some fkd up residents here. So no matter what, the only change will be that Washingtonians can have a firearm in the home cocked and ready to go vs inoperable and telling the intruder to wait until I reassemble my weapon LOL
          live everyday as if it your last...because one day it will be

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sob153 View Post
            I’m glad that they struck this law down. However it only effects certain parts such as the right to have a firearm in the house loaded and ready to go. It doesn’t require the District to issue carry permits only premises permits. I heard on the radio all day about these anti gun people…all the shootings…all the gun fire at night in my neighborhood. What these people fail to realize is that these people shooting in the night and other stuff are those that could care less if there is a law or not. It’s pretty obvious that these thugs don’t have any type of permit to have a firearm. These people carry their guns illegally and therefore could shoot a person when entering a home to commit a robbery. This law only restricted the law abiding citizen to protect oneself if need be. If you look at other states that have strict gun laws and free or authorize a person to carry or keep in house that the crime in those states are more for the strict gun laws. The District is a prime example. All they were doing was restricting the law abiding citizen. Crime is up in the District. In VA anyone can openly carry if I am not mistaken and in TX they can openly carry as well yet the crimes per capita are lesser than the District. The quality of life will not be effected here. Crime will still go on. We just really have some fkd up residents here. So no matter what, the only change will be that Washingtonians can have a firearm in the home cocked and ready to go vs inoperable and telling the intruder to wait until I reassemble my weapon LOL
            No Open Carry in Texas... Concealed Only, though the opencarry.org guys are petitioning the Legislature and Gov. Good-Hair to change that in the next session
            sigpic
            Let your watchword be duty, and know no other talisman of success than labor. Let honor be your guiding star in your dealing with your superiors, with your fellows, with all. Be as true to a trust reposed as the needle to the pole. Stand by the right even to the sacrifice of life itself, and learn that death is preferable to dishonor. ~ Gov. Richard Coke, October 4, 1876

            Comment


            • #7
              I just read the first 97 pages. WOW, well researched, well written. Now I need to look for some books by Justice Scalia. The dissent was rather mundane and not well written.
              The best parts are in the last few paragraphs of the majority opinion, as well as a number of nuggets buried in the rest of the text. I'll need to reread it again - along with my copies of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Common Sense, and The Federalist Papers.
              For now, we remain free. For now.
              "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
              John Stuart Mill

              Comment


              • #8
                Now that the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, I am betting places like Washington, DC and New York City will now ban bullets in their cities to get around it. You may have a right to the gun now, but getting the ammunition for it could be the next issue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A Double Rum & Coke Pleaseeeeeeeeee!

                  Crappy Post!! Bad day.....
                  Last edited by Ralph8119; 07-01-2008, 02:11 PM.
                  Take care and stay safe!
                  Ralph8119
                  A Little Something Else For Those 60's & 70's Music Lovers On Line!
                  sigpic
                  http://www.myfreenetradio.com/listen70s.asx

                  A Cool Website On History In Photos Of The New York City Police Department!
                  http://www.policeny.com/home.html

                  Policelink!
                  http://policelink.monster.com/member/Ralph8119

                  Inside The New York City Police Academy!
                  http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pr/videos.shtml

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ralph8119 View Post
                    Crap yes!
                    They the supremes are in the law of the second amendment !
                    After Obama gets into office, Yes, freaking yes the bullets, then the freaking wood or plastic handles or how the products is shipped!
                    The MoFos will find a way to stop the second!!!
                    That's okay Ralph. Persistence, Duct Tape and Vasoline - with these we will always prevail.
                    The All New
                    2013
                    BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                    Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                    - M1Garand

                    (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, since the decision said that compelling people to keep their guns disassembled was unconstitutional, it's not much of a leap to see that forbidding sales of 'bullets' (ammunition) would also be banned. Not that the anti's will not try.

                      Freedom is a journey, not a destination. We must remain vigilant!


                      My oath of office was "... to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC..." . My commitment did not end with my retirement.
                      Last edited by Sleuth; 07-01-2008, 11:01 AM.
                      "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                      John Stuart Mill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sob153 View Post
                        I’m glad that they struck this law down. However it only effects certain parts such as the right to have a firearm in the house loaded and ready to go. It doesn’t require the District to issue carry permits only premises permits.
                        That's what it affects because that's the case that was before them, and the Supremes usually work very hard to constrain their decision solely to the case at hand. However, a careful reading of the language of the decision makes their overall direction pretty clear. They found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. They found that "reasonable" restrictions, such as forbidding the carrying of firearms into a courthouse, would be acceptable; but that carries with it the clear implication that a complete ban on the issuance of carry permits would likewise be struck down. And the language of that decision can be cited by the lower courts when such issues come before them. So I think this decision opens the door to the issue of carry permits as well and we'll probably see the lower and appellate courts addressing that issue using it as a precedent.

                        Pete

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hmmmm....the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue kinda makes me cringe. The thought of every idiot now having the right possess a firearm in their home scares me. Imagine people who cannot program a VCR now having a semi-automatic pistol to play with. Although I agree with the concept of this ruling, I would never want it implemented, but too late now.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            DH, with rights come responsibilities. I could shoot long before I could program a VCR, but that is beside the point.
                            Our system of law is based on the idea that we all have certain rights - rights we possessed prior to 1789 (Adoption of the Constitution). Or would you regulate the right to free speech, say to only those whose views agree with yours? No, you still cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but you can speak your mind.
                            Viewed in that context, all the court did was reaffirm our rights. You may not like some of the people who have those rights, but I don't like some of the people who own printing presses either. So I use my right to free speech to show the errors in their free speech.
                            "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                            John Stuart Mill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DH21187 View Post
                              Hmmmm....the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue kinda makes me cringe. The thought of every idiot now having the right possess a firearm in their home scares me. Imagine people who cannot program a VCR now having a semi-automatic pistol to play with. Although I agree with the concept of this ruling, I would never want it implemented, but too late now.
                              What makes me cringe is the above statement. The Supreme Court simply recognized something that the founders of our nation noted in the Bill of Rights: The ability to remain free and secure in our own homes is nothing but words without having the means to protect ourselves. None of the rights recognized in the Constitution are absolute, but having the Second Amendment properly acknowledged, insures the others will continue to exist.

                              BTW, I'm not an expert on all VCRs, but I sure know how to operate a Glock.
                              "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2176 users online. 87 members and 2089 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X