US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


pinksugarsub -> US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/21/2007 8:22:20 PM)

Tuesday the US Supreme Court accepted the case of the gun ban now in effect in DC.  Pundents say this decision could be ground-breaking for the 2nd Amendment case law.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071120/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeguns
 
pinksugarsub




Real0ne -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/21/2007 10:56:52 PM)



This is going to be a very intereting case to see if they come up with the right answer after all the bullshit handed down since 1942.




popeye1250 -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/21/2007 11:16:14 PM)

And if they believe in the U.S. Constitution they can only go one way and restore to the people of Washington, D.C. their rights.
They have to keep a gun dissasembled in their own homes?
The "govt" be it federal, state or local isn't supposed to be in the business of denying Citizens their rights.
Whoever did this, if they are still alive, should be sued to the point of homelessness and cast out from decent society or better yet, sentanced to life in prison. Whatever these scumbags have left of their lives.
This is why I'm in favor of public whippings.
This is what happens when we let too much government into our lives.




slaveboyforyou -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/21/2007 11:39:59 PM)

This case scares me.  If they decide in favor of the D.C. government, it will give city and state governments everywhere the go-ahead to start passing laws like this. 




popeye1250 -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 12:46:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

This case scares me.  If they decide in favor of the D.C. government, it will give city and state governments everywhere the go-ahead to start passing laws like this. 


No problem, we're just going to have to shoot a bunch of people.
And when it starts they won't be able to stop it by raising a white flag when they want to.




Estring -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 12:52:24 AM)

It is so obvious how well gun control has worked in DC. It's quite the paradise.




farglebargle -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 5:05:08 AM)

Estring hits it right on the head.

When Congress can turn DC into a shining beacon of Freedom and Liberty, then Congress can tell the States how to run themselves.





mnottertail -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 5:11:59 AM)

It was 1939 I believe, the last ruling, on this.  Nevertheless, I believe the Supreme Court will rule very narrowly.  It is not in the Federal Governments nor the State Governments best interests to create millions of criminals virtually overnight, because if they rule broadly that the militia AND people  is not what was meant, there are gonna be alot of gun owners militantly doing the 'pry it from my cold, dead hands you cocksucker', sort of thing.

Oliver Wendell Holmes




LadyEllen -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 5:17:45 AM)

forgive my ignorance, but does the constitution apply to people resident in in DC at all, as a district separate from the states proper?

notwithstanding, that gun control laws only apply to the law abiding in any case

E




farglebargle -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 6:53:51 AM)

I'm of the opinion that no-one should live in Washington DC, excepting government workers, I guess, because people will bitch about everyone needing to commute all the time.

Yeah, on paper it's US Government real-estate, and Congress makes the rules.




mnottertail -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 6:54:15 AM)

Yes, there is no cutout like the Vatican, all physical and spiritual law of the land still applies, they have a city government but the state and federal is kinda wrapped into one.

Ron




mnottertail -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 6:59:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I'm of the opinion that no-one should live in Washington DC, excepting government workers, I guess, because people will bitch about everyone needing to commute all the time.

Yeah, on paper it's US Government real-estate, and Congress makes the rules.


And I suspect this is a good thing, one couldn't have state senators toe tapping in the airports and overshadowing the federal senators, just not cricket, old boy.

Ron




Real0ne -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 7:38:05 AM)




Its been in many constitutions as well as the feds:

Connecticut Article I, Section 15
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Article I, Section 20
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self,
family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Georgia Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner
in which arms may be borne.

Maryland
The Maryland Constitution contains no provision concerning the right
to keep and bear arms.

Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Part I, Article XVII
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.
And as, in the time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they
ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature;
and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

New Hampshire Bill of Rights, Part 1, Article 2-a
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves, their families, their property, and the state.

New York Bill of Rights, Article II, Section 4
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be
infringed.

New Jersey Rights and Privileges, Article I Section 1
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain
natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

North Carolina Article I, Section 30
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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed
weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes
against that practice.

Rhode Island Article I, Section 22
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

South Carolina Article I, Section 20
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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General
Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in
subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

Vermont Chapter 1, Article 16
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State and as standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the
military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by
the civil power.

Virginia Article I, Section 13
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be
avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military
should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil
power.

Eleven of the original thirteen states specify the right to bear
arms. Four clearly state the individual's (or person's) right to bear
arms. Virginia states that the Militia is composed of the body of the
people (common citizens). The articles of Georgia, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Vermont just say the people (as in all people) and
say nothing about the militia. New Jersey states that all people have
the right to self defense which would, without much of a stretch,
include the right to defend oneself with the use of a gun.

That means that ten of the thirteen original colonies put the right
to bear arms into the hands of the people and not the state. Further,
five states specifically say that standing armies, during times of
peace, are a danger to liberty. Thus, nearly all of the States put
forth that the right, and it could also be argued that the duty, of
the individual to keep and bear arms was considered sacred and thus,
it is reasonable to say the same about the Second Amendment of the
Bill of Rights.  OpenCarry.org




popeye1250 -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 7:54:01 AM)

Realone, I think Maine has a law on the books that says something to the effect that no laws can be made restricting the rights of the people to keep and bare arms.




Lordandmaster -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 8:22:32 AM)

Yeah, those Mainers love to walk around in short sleeves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Realone, I think Maine has a law on the books that says something to the effect that no laws can be made restricting the rights of the people to keep and bare arms.




cyberdude611 -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 8:49:21 AM)

The Roberts court is taking up a bunch of controversal cases. Much more than the Rhenquist court. This court is obviously not afraid to review and change even established case law.
Over the last two years they dented Roe v Wade and Brown v Board of Education.

Next year will be two major rulings on gun rights and the death penalty.

If the court says that owning a gun is an individual right, it's going to be extremely difficult for any form of gun control to be passed in this country. The reason why is because the US Supreme Court has never actually taken this question up and ruled on it directly. They've interpreted previous cases but never interpreted what the constitution says. This case will do that. So this may very well be a landmark case.




SimplyMichael -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 10:28:12 AM)

The 1934 Miller case is an interesting one.  A felon was charged with illegal possession of a sawed off shotgun.  The court ruled that because a sawed off shotgun wasn't a militia weapon (the idiot defense lawyer didn't even show up and nobody pointed out that shotguns WERE a US military weapon) and since it wasn't a military weapon, the 2nd didn't apply.

In other words, the 2nd isn't about hunting guns, those CAN be banned, it wasn't about self defense, as those CAN be banned, the 2nd was about ensuring "the people" can possess military weapons.  Clearly the state's constitutions, especially those adopted prior to and shortly after the Constitution, which omit the part about militias (since having militia's IS a right of states) and only mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms, support the individual rights view (although the 9th twisted Miller pretty hard and ignored almost all logic in deciding it was a collective right).

And the Democrats being the fucking imbeciles they are will fall for this Rovian plot like sharks to chum and take up gun control as the issue for '08.  Rather brilliant I think and I am sure this has something to do with Robert's choosing this issue now. 

Frankly, as I told a staffer of Feinstein's over the telecom amnesty, if I am going to vote for someone who votes Republican, I am going to vote for a real one, not a wolf in sheeps clothing.




cyberdude611 -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 11:18:04 AM)

Well if you go back to 1789, the people had the same kind of guns the military did. There was no difference. In fact, that's how we won the revolution. The vast majority of the continental army was made up of farmers who grabbed their gun and started shooting at redcoats. The fact that every farmer had a gun and that it was no more or less advanced than what the Brits had evened the playing field just enough so that the colonists could win. Today, that's not possible. It would be a slaughter.

Keep in mind the founding fathers did not even trust the government they were creating. That's why the bill of rights were passed. They firmly believed the only way a government could refrain from tyranny was if it was under constant threat that the people possessed the power to unseat the government. These people were revolutionaries....remember that. They believed in weak government and a strong populace.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.




SimplyMichael -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 11:52:17 AM)

Actually, the militia sucked as a military force and it wasn't until we raised the continental army that we had any success in the broad sense against the Brits.

However, the 2nd amendment, like most of the bill of rights, is about providing the tools the people need to control the government, not the other way around.




Sinergy -> RE: US Supreme Court Reviews Gun Rights (11/22/2007 3:18:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Well if you go back to 1789, the people had the same kind of guns the military did. There was no difference. In fact, that's how we won the revolution.



This is not entirely true.  The United States farmer generally used a rifle (e.g. Ferguson Breech Loading Rifle) instead of the musket used by the redcoats.  More important than this, the British battle tactic of massed soldiers and volleying fire was largely ineffective against people who hunted to survive, practiced endlessly at distance marksmanship (largely useless and hence unused for Continental warfare), and hid behind objects.

The British (a largely conscript and press-ganged army) were relatively untrained and relied on volleying shots, massed formations, artillery, and bayonet charges to win battles.

Sinergy





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125