Mark P
Administrator
Reged: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 1020
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Looks like the SCOTUS will be releasing their thoughts on this thing Wednesday or Thursday.
http://www.scotusblog.com/
--------------------
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
Mark P
Administrator
Reged: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 1020
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Latest gossip is that the opinion will be written by Scalia. Those that read the bones on these kind of things predict that he's writing it because he hasn't written one yet this go 'round. He's "known" to be on the individual right side, so if he writes it the opinion would be that way with other folks chiming in. They also expect the whole thing to be last minute. So late Thursday they'll make the release and go on break.
This is my interpretation of other folks' interpretations so it could all be for shit and come Friday the jackboots will be coming for your guns, but it looks like it will be a "win" for gun folks.
--------------------
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
Mark P
Administrator
Reged: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 1020
Loc: Arizona
|
|
5-4 decision.
10:13
Ben Winograd - The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
--------------------
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
Mark P
Administrator
Reged: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 1020
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Quote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Well that's finally cleared up.
--------------------
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
Moon Dog
Administrator / Grand Ayatollah
Reged: Sep 28 2000
Posts: 1422
Loc: Mc Neal, AZ
|
|
This is historic, a definition totally in line with the founding fathers intent if judged by their writings at the time and shortly after the signing of the Bill of Rights.
Somehow I have a premonition that this is not the end of the debate out in the states.
Great recovery of a greatly erroded constitutional right.
--------------------
Moon Dog
|
Daryl
Flying Missionary Positioner
Reged: Apr 17 2002
Posts: 1436
Loc: Sierra Vista, Az
|
|
Quote:
This is historic, a definition totally in line with the founding fathers intent if judged by their writings at the time and shortly after the signing of the Bill of Rights.
Somehow I have a premonition that this is not the end of the debate out in the states.
Great recovery of a greatly erroded constitutional right.
It's not the end of the debate, by far.
I read somewhere this morning that a group has been sitting on a lawsuit against Chicago's gun ban, and that we can expect it to be filed within 48 hours.
Time will tell.
Daryl
|
fotohunt
Disciple
Reged: Nov 19 2000
Posts: 315
Loc: TX USA
|
|
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
Written by Brandon Long
Thursday, 26 June 2008
US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns, strikes down DC handgun ban.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive 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 writes in the majority opinion that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." He does say the ruling would not affect laws that ban felons and the mentally ill from owning guns or prohibit people from carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.
Lawmakers and gun rights supporters are quickly reacting to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting.
Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold calls it a long overdue decision, saying he didn't think "the precedent has been seriously reaffirmed in decades."
But fellow Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California says "70 years of precedent has gone out the window" and that the people of the country will be less safe because of it.
Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association calls the decision "the opening salvo in a step-by-step process." He says the NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on today's decision.
(AP)
Let's hope we can keep the momentum going through November at least.
|
disco1946
Mouse Dipper
Reged: Jul 01 2007
Posts: 675
Loc: Mesa, Arizona
|
|
GIT 'ER DONE
--------------------
Friends don't let Friends shoot Rugers
|
DanS
Crown Killer
Reged: Sep 14 2003
Posts: 2248
Loc: St. Louis, MO
|
|
OOH-Rah, that means Ya-hoo for you swabby types... 
Well, I am happy that after 200 years as a country, 5 of the 4 SCOTUSA justices decided that I now have the "INDIVIDUAL" right to own a handgun, in my home. Pretty damn scary that the fab four justices, two from WJC, I from Ford, and one from GHB, didn't think I had that right.
I wonder if they will decide if I have the individual right to co to a catholic church, or perhaps a protestant church next.
I thank God Kerry or Gore didn't appoint the last two justices.
Guess I'll sit back and what what happens in Frisco, or Chi-town now.
--------------------
If it's not worth doing, then it's certainly not worth doing right.
|
johnclif
Apostle of Humility
Reged: Jun 24 2008
Posts: 12
Loc: Western Washington
|
|
The Heller decision was a huge win for pro-Second Amendment folks, but it's not the end. It's really the end of the beginning.
Morton Grove, Illinois, the original town to ban handguns, joined several other Chicago suburbs that suspended their bans on handguns after Heller was announced. The NRA has filed suit against Chicago's ban, and is preparing to file suit against San Francisco's ban.
We are basically where the civil rights movement was after the 1954 Brown decision. There'll be another couple of decades of lawsuits to work out the details.
The point is, it's VERY important who we have sitting as judges. Heller was a 5-4 decision, and two of the 5 majority votes were judges appointed by W. If Gore had won in 2000, Heller would have gone the other way, and we would have seen the end of private gun ownership in America. It was that close.
This is why who wins the presidency this fall matters. We have two choices, and there's no doubt that Obama will nominate anti-gun judges. He has stated that he supports the Chicago handgun ban, and that he supported the DC gun ban. Even more important, despite your anger at Bush or the Republicans, if you care about RKBA, you can't vote Democratic in good conscience.
I have a lot of respect for McCain the man. He's earned that by spending 5+ years getting the crap beaten out of him on a daily basis for the crime of being an American, and I defy anyone to say differently. I am not a huge fan of a lot of his positions, though, but I will give him kudos for having the courage to actually HAVE a position, unlike his opponent. However, because I do care about the RKBA, the choice is obvious.
I'm on my soapbox here, because I can remember running into shooters who voted for Clinton in 1992 because their union endorsed him, or some such foolishness. I'll step off now....
|
Daryl
Flying Missionary Positioner
Reged: Apr 17 2002
Posts: 1436
Loc: Sierra Vista, Az
|
|
Quote:
I'll step off now....
Stay up there; you're doing fine.
Daryl
|
DanS
Crown Killer
Reged: Sep 14 2003
Posts: 2248
Loc: St. Louis, MO
|
|
Make no mistake, I respect Senator McCains military service, as I respect any honorably discharged military persons service.
As a politician, I have very little respect for the man. I am sick of voting for the least evil of two evils. Believe me I am torn on this election, but am strongly thinking of sitting this one out. First time since I started voting in 1980.
I feel that a vote for McCain will just tell the Republican party that it is OK to go even further left, we'll still vote for you.
--------------------
If it's not worth doing, then it's certainly not worth doing right.
|
CALOK1
Flying Missionary Positioner
Reged: Nov 25 2002
Posts: 1099
Loc: Yukon Oklahoma
|
|
I'm with you on this one DanS.
I have voted every year sence 1966, but I'm not going to waste my time on this one.
That way I can say I didn't vote for that SOB. 
--------------------
CAL
|
Daryl
Flying Missionary Positioner
Reged: Apr 17 2002
Posts: 1436
Loc: Sierra Vista, Az
|
|
Quote:
Make no mistake, I respect Senator McCains military service, as I respect any honorably discharged military persons service.
As a politician, I have very little respect for the man. I am sick of voting for the least evil of two evils. Believe me I am torn on this election, but am strongly thinking of sitting this one out. First time since I started voting in 1980.
I feel that a vote for McCain will just tell the Republican party that it is OK to go even further left, we'll still vote for you.
That's the problem with the two party system that this country seems to have fallen to.
Still, I'd rather vote for the lesser of two evils than stand aside and let the worst of the two get elected without me doing what little I can to avoid it.
I believe that BO is a racist, anti-gun, anti-american with a strong muslim background, and I shudder at the thought of him as president.
You bet I'll vote.
Daryl
|
johnclif
Apostle of Humility
Reged: Jun 24 2008
Posts: 12
Loc: Western Washington
|
|
Quote:
Make no mistake, I respect Senator McCains military service, as I respect any honorably discharged military persons service.
As a politician, I have very little respect for the man. I am sick of voting for the least evil of two evils. Believe me I am torn on this election, but am strongly thinking of sitting this one out. First time since I started voting in 1980.
I feel that a vote for McCain will just tell the Republican party that it is OK to go even further left, we'll still vote for you.
I can understand this sentiment. I think the GOP, and especially the Congress, blew it by not fulfilling their promises... to govern ethically, to cut waste, to shrink government and restore it to its proper role. I disagree with many of McCain's positions, particularly on immigration (I don't understand why we won't let highly-educated folks get green cards but we give virtual citizenship and all of the privileges thereof to anyone who can sneak across our borders... and we won't build the damn fence). Yet, in our system where the winner takes all, any vote that is not for either of the two candidates who stand a chance of winning (whether it's for a third-party candidate, or it goes uncast) is a vote for the guy you dislike the most.
Bill Clinton won 2 terms thanks to Ross Perot. Did the Perot voters really think, "Well if Perot doesn't win I'm perfectly happy if Clinton wins" or words to that effect? That was the effect of voting for Perot. Similarly, a vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush. Left-leaning blogs are screaming "Never again!" They've learned their lesson.. have we learned ours?
If gun owners sit this one out, Obama wins. Do you really think Obama will nominate more gun-friendly judges than McCain? Do you think Obama will oppose the Democrat Congress more than McCain? Do you think that McCain will be more leftist and "progressive" than Obama?
Politics is the art of the possible. I wish the Republicans had a nominee with the eloquence of Reagan, the intelligence of Gingrich, and the political skills of Bill Clinton (I'm starting to really like Bobby Jindahl). However, we don't have that choice. We have Obama or McCain. And if the Democrats win, the lesson that will be imparted is that the country wants more liberals in power, not less.
|
DanS
Crown Killer
Reged: Sep 14 2003
Posts: 2248
Loc: St. Louis, MO
|
|
Quote:
If gun owners sit this one out, Obama wins. Do you really think Obama will nominate more gun-friendly judges than McCain? Do you think Obama will oppose the Democrat Congress more than McCain? Do you think that McCain will be more leftist and "progressive" than Obama?
Naw, I think of them about equally. McCain has gone out of his way (crossing the isle) to work with the democrats. He has a hard time backing a republican.
4 years of Obama might give us 8 years of another Republican light. Clinton won the first term because of Perot and Bush being a RINO, remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"? He then won it again because Bob Dole "sorta" ran. It was his turn, you know, now it's McCains turn. Who's turn will it be next to run as a Republican, Joe Lieberman?
Maybe I am misdirected, ignorant, whatever. I'm fed up with them.
--------------------
If it's not worth doing, then it's certainly not worth doing right.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
