PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow (In the Morning!)



megimoo
06-25-2008, 09:43 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term...snip
The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced..........."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

FeebMaster
06-25-2008, 09:44 PM
This is going to be hilarious.

SaintLouieWoman
06-25-2008, 10:22 PM
They were saying on Hannity that they heard Scalia was writing the decision. Hope it's the majority and not minority opinion.

Aklover
06-25-2008, 11:30 PM
This is going to be hilarious.




Yep at 10:02 EST the media will be saying the sky is falling or rednecks will be calling for the violent overthrow of our government.


Rush Limbaugh might even be forced to talk a 2nd amendment issues for more than a soundbite tomoorrw too.

Aklover
06-25-2008, 11:31 PM
They were saying on Hannity that they heard Scalia was writing the decision. Hope it's the majority and not minority opinion.



Question is what kind of majority. I predict 5-4 but at least three different views among the 5.

Sonnabend
06-26-2008, 04:38 AM
1.The genie is out of the bottle, and no way can they make people turn in their guns...aint gonna happen.

200 million firearms already in public hands....RTKBA is safe.

2. Any ruling will come down to states rights anyway.

3. They have already agreed on pvt ownership of firearms in earlier hearings...this will more than likely be on regulation and whether a ban is constitutional or not..and that will come down to the separate states and their own Legislatures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin


Whether the handgun ban has reduced crime in a city surrounded by less restrictive jurisdictions is a matter of heated dispute. Crime in the District of Columbia has mirrored trends in the rest of the country, dropping quite sharply during the 1990s but now experiencing some increase.
In striking down the District of Columbia law, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment would still permit “reasonable regulations,” but that a flat ban was not reasonable.
Denis Henigan, a lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates strict gun control, said that if the justices agree with the appeals court, an important question for future cases will be “what legal standard the court will eventually adopt for evaluating other gun regulations.”

gator
06-26-2008, 08:00 AM
I suspect it will go like this:

The absolute ban on handguns in DC will be overturned.

If we are lucky there will be some statement that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

There will be some weasel words in it about "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. Those weasel words will be enough to keep most existing unreasonable laws in effect and to allow for the continuation of most anti gun laws in the country.

Don’t ever underestimate the ability of the Court to be stupid. Just look at the ruling a couple of weeks ago on GITMO detainees if you don’t believe me.

Besides, nothing much will change. If Obama get in power and nominates a couple of Liberals to the Supreme Court another case will come down a few years that will allow the anti gun wackos to redefine the laws to their benefit.

Our government is pretty much out of control. All three branches are screwed up.

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8193/fuckyeahbs4.jpg

gator
06-26-2008, 08:01 AM
1.The genie is out of the bottle, and no way can they make people turn in their guns...aint gonna happen.

200 million firearms already in public hands....RTKBA is safe.

2. Any ruling will come down to states rights anyway.

3. They have already agreed on pvt ownership of firearms in earlier hearings...this will more than likely be on regulation and whether a ban is constitutional or not..and that will come down to the separate states and their own Legislatures.



Instead of worrying about a court case in the US you eed to more concerned about the lack of righ to keep and bear arms in your own country.

biccat
06-26-2008, 08:59 AM
2. Any ruling will come down to states rights anyway.
If you want the gun issue to remain an issue of states rights, then you are saying that states have the ability to control, limit, or outright ban possession of guns.

Personally, I want the 2nd amendment to be incorporated into the 14th amendment, like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Gingersnap
06-26-2008, 10:22 AM
They struck down the ban - details to come. :)

Vepr
06-26-2008, 10:23 AM
Sounds like they made the right decision. :D

10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Apocalypse
06-26-2008, 11:32 AM
Supreme court did it right.


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.
http://www.wmgt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=57

The NRA web site is heavily overloaded, really slow if you can get on.

gator
06-26-2008, 11:34 AM
There was something missing from my quick scan of the ruling.

The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.

Rebel Yell
06-26-2008, 11:35 AM
There was something missing from my quick scan of the ruling.

The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.


Why would you even have looked for that?

gator
06-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Why would you even have looked for that?

You are right in that the actual case did not raise the issue but the Court investigated the intent of the 2nd and chose not to comment on what I think is the real intent of the Amendment.

biccat
06-26-2008, 11:39 AM
The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.

I would think that the government would generally frown on people raising arms against it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you authority to shoot cops if you think they're violating your rights.

In fact, I would suppose that people who choose to raise arms against their government would probably ignore the Supreme Court on this issue. People who engage in rebellion rarely look for legal precident to do so. The issue is moot.

gator
06-26-2008, 12:12 PM
I would think that the government would generally frown on people raising arms against it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you authority to shoot cops if you think they're violating your rights.

In fact, I would suppose that people who choose to raise arms against their government would probably ignore the Supreme Court on this issue. People who engage in rebellion rarely look for legal precident to do so. The issue is moot.

The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.

biccat
06-26-2008, 12:27 PM
The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.

I don't dispute that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was (in part) to enable citizens to protect themselves against the government. But the political reality is that no government is going to authorize use of force against its enforcement of its own laws. Further, if someone doesn't recognize government authority in one field, then they probably won't recognize government authority to limit gun ownership either.

megimoo
06-26-2008, 12:32 PM
The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.
A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson on the matter would be in order.Don't you think ?

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Quotes on a free people!

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
...............................................
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
...........................................
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
.................................................. ..
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

gator
06-26-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't dispute that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was (in part) to enable citizens to protect themselves against the government.

I think you are mising something here. It is not only protection from the govenment but to enable the citizens to move against the government if the government becomes abusive.

gator
06-26-2008, 12:34 PM
A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson on the matter would be in order.Don't you think ?

I am lazy and I think most people participating in this thread know the quotes as well as me.

biccat
06-26-2008, 12:35 PM
I think you are mising something here. It is not only protection from the govenment but to enable the citizens to move against the government if the government becomes abusive.
OK, I won't dispute that either. I have seen quite a few quotes on the intent of the founders when the amendment was passed. There seem to be a number of purposes for the amendment.

I just don't think that the modern government would ever give the slightest nod towards armed revolt.

gator
06-26-2008, 12:42 PM
I just don't think that the modern government would ever give the slightest nod towards armed revolt.

Of course you are correct. However, if the people have the right to keep and bear arms and are willing to revolt then what the govenment "nods" don't mean much, does it?

biccat
06-26-2008, 12:49 PM
Of course you are correct. However, if the people have the right to keep and bear arms and are willing to revolt then what the govenment "nods" don't mean much, does it?

That's pretty much my point. The issue is moot, because the ruling preserves the right to own firearms and people aren't going to look to the government to revolt against the same.

megimoo
06-26-2008, 12:52 PM
OK, I won't dispute that either. I have seen quite a few quotes on the intent of the founders when the amendment was passed. There seem to be a number of purposes for the amendment.

I just don't think that the modern government would ever give the slightest nod towards armed revolt.If there was an uprising against a tyrannical government how could you possible
expect them to approve ?
How would you feel is the SCOTUS ruled that we have no right to keep arms ?I would guess you would be 'UP IN ARMS " to quote an apt phrase .
To quote our singular founder ,"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." and again,"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Vepr
06-26-2008, 01:02 PM
I was almost curious to see what the reaction would have been if the ruling had gone very badly for us. I am very glad it came out the way it did but if the court had said militia only I am wondering if, as a populous we would have had the balls to stand up and say "You can go to hell we are rebooting to constitution version 1.0".

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 01:09 PM
If there was an uprising against a tyrannical government how could you possible
expect them to approve ?
How would you feel is the SCOTUS ruled that we have no right to keep arms ?I would guess you would be 'UP IN ARMS " to quote an apt phrase .
To quote our singular founder ,"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." and again,"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

And add to that our recent blind acceptance of government surveilance....add to that your guns and you make it easier for them to try to take them

Eyelids
06-26-2008, 01:29 PM
There werent enough innocent people getting shot in this country, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

gator
06-26-2008, 01:31 PM
There werent enough innocent people getting shot in this country, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

The best way to stop innocent people from getting shot is for other people not to shoot them.

biccat
06-26-2008, 02:29 PM
The best way to stop innocent people from getting shot is for other people not to shoot them.

Maybe we could pass laws prohibiting people from shooting eachother. Seems like that would work much better than prohibiting people from defending themselves against getting shot.

Zafod
06-26-2008, 02:44 PM
There werent enough innocent people getting shot in this country, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

The UK is doing great about keeping guns out of the hands of crimi...... oh nevermind.....

Goldwater
06-26-2008, 03:00 PM
The UK is doing great about keeping guns out of the hands of crimi...... oh nevermind.....

Knives are the rage in the UK right now.

Zafod
06-26-2008, 03:25 PM
Knives are the rage in the UK right now.

Yeah and CCTV as well.
What was the last figure? 10 camera's for every person?

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 03:26 PM
There werent enough innocent people getting shot in this country, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

The gun is the ultimate example of freedom and liberty. It says you will not control me....you will have to persuade me as to what you wish me to do.

It's a tool that levels the playing field for a 90 lbs woman against the 250 lbs would be rapist.

It's my right as a responsible, law abiding citizen to have the privilege of protection. The founder's knew the steps it took to control the people and disarming them was a biggie.
For those that say "let the government protect you" and would take my privilege away . I say....All the government will do is provide me a designer body bag after the fact. Go create your own totalitarian state somewhere else.

I'll use that argument till the day I die.

Sonnabend
06-26-2008, 05:11 PM
There werent enough innocent people getting shot in this country, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Gun crime spiralling out of control in the UK, Brown now talking "knife control", gun laws here doing jack and shit to stop the wave of gun attacks, armed robberies, shootings and other murders using firearms every single day.

Gun laws accomplish one thing and one alone, to disarm the law abiding citizen leaving them prey to well armed criminals.

Here endeth the lesson.

Goldwater
06-26-2008, 10:55 PM
Yeah and CCTV as well.
What was the last figure? 10 camera's for every person?

14 I believe.

And it was one for every 14 people, wow, 10 for every person would have caused a rebellion or something.