2nd Amendment Goes To The Supreme Court...

[Norm]

Saw this on google news....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312338,00.html

 

What will happen?! <_>

 

Norm

Edited November 20, 2007 by Norm

[Z3BigDaddy]

I think, and only my opinion, that it is a very scary thing but..... It's past time to roll the dice and get er over with........

[FireMerc]

And since the dice are going to be thrown sooner or later, now is probably a good time to do it.

[October1971]

Either way it goes, it's going to be a major situation for either the anti-gun or the pro-gun. We better hope and keep our fingers crossed that the Supreme Court appointments made recently were the right ones for gun owners, or it's going to unleash a torrent of the most anti-gun laws one could imagine.

 

I have read a few articles by scholars over the years who admitted they were anti-gun but who had to admit that from a historical and legal standpoint, the 2nd amendment IS IN FACT an individual right.

 

In my humble opinion, the court will probably strike down the total DC handgun ban, but still allow some onerous restrictions. That way they can waffle back and forth and not p... off both sides, even though we know there should be absolutely NO DOUBT that the majority of U.S. gun laws are unconstitutional.

 

Let's see, case will be heard the first of next year...? Wonder if it will work its way into the campaigning of the Presidential Candidates. We can watch the majority of them squirm and use double-speak. But I surely do NOT TRUST GUILIANI on this issue. And of course, we KNOW what Billiary would do if she gets in...

 

Pray for a purely constitutional approach by our Supremes or we are on the way to a slippery slope of no return.

 

[Chromebolt]

When the court considered the Miranda issue they basically said that yes congress passed law (which was completely ignored) overruling the Scotus decision about Miranda, but since we've been using it for so many years. lets keep it in place.

 

I expect a similar ruling stating it is an individual right but with some reasonable restrictions. It will send a message but what that message is will be fought again and again.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm in line with Jeff Knox; not really sweating it. If we end up on the wrong side of this ruling, all will be as it is now - if we are on the winning end, it will hopefully become a stepping stone for further reform. The appeals court ruling basically said what chromebolt posted - some restrictions OK, bans on private ownership not OK as well as "the people" means "the people", not "state government".

 

For those with the stomach for it, here is the opinion - I recommend reading at least the majority, as it is a nice history lesson:

 

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common...03/04-7041a.pdf

Edited November 21, 2007 by The Lone Ranger

[hawksnest]

The U. S. Supreme Court will rule on the narrow issue presented and will uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals, which ruled the DC ban on hanguns in the home is unconstitutional. My .02

[TSMGguy]

. . . which would do a very nice job of knocking down D.C.'s handgun ban, as well as that of NYC and San Francisco, among other places.

[GPDT]

Let's add Chicago too please!

 

. . . which would do a very nice job of knocking down D.C.'s handgun ban, as well as that of NYC and San Francisco, among other places.

Edited November 22, 2007 by GPDT

[762x51]

What we should hope for is that the Court will in fact do it’s homework on this one and look at what was written about the 2nd Amendment in the years just after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those writings more accurately reflect what the 2nd Amendment means and why it was the 2nd right to be written. If I’m not mistaken, all of the original 13 states had a similar statement in their respective Constitutions.

 

It's interesting to note that wherever "the people" is mentioned in the Bill of Rights that the courts always find that it should be read "individual" EXCEPT for the 2nd Amendment.

 

Wouldn't finding that it's an individual right then make it one of our "civil rights"?

It would be great if the Court does find that it's an individual right which would force the ACLU to finally be on "our" side.

Edited November 22, 2007 by 762x51

[October1971]

PhilOhio,

I have the same images in my mind as you do about how this SHOULD settle out. But as I sit quietly and contemplate what could happen if we DO PREVAIL on this, my gut tells me that the country has gone way too far in the other direction for "them" to let this happen.

 

I believe the anti-gunners will use every trick and fraud in the book to turn all this around.

 

Let's suppose we get a solid win on the current Supreme Court Action.

And let's suppose that all the conservative pro-gun people start trying to overturn things like the 86 ban, etc etc (which I firmly believe we SHOULD do.)

 

Then assume that as these "issues" come up and the liberals might have gained the White House and both houses of Congress, and appointed some liberal judges, could they possibly reverse all this and force us back into the same onerous situation in which we find ourselves today?

 

I am in no way saying we shouldn't take a WIN on this and keep right on fighting for even more of our rights which have been eaten away over the years.

I'm just saying that when you see what has happened on illegal immigration, courts and judges re-writing the laws, and fraud in the election process, the total re-writing of history in our school's text books, the financial bankrupting of this country (China technically owns us now), I guess I'm just not capable of imaginging a scenario of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I guess I just don't want to get my hopes up...

 

However, I will hope, pray, and do everything else in my power to see this happen! Can you imagine what a positive ruling ( ruling expected by June 2008 ) would do for the November 08 elections...! I get shivers just thinking about it.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to this board and all who use it.

Bill Douglas

[fortyfivecal]

the supreme court ruling will be enlightening in many ways.

 

the constitution is at odds with many agenda's these days. on the one hand, its the constitution, the very seed from which this country has grown, for which much blood has been shed to protect what it stands for, the concept that men are born free, and as free men, they have certain rights which are in-alienable. these free men ( and women ) are the governing body, as they know best, what is best for those who wish to protect their in-alienable rights.

 

no document that i know of, comes as close to describing and protecting Liberty, a word that has fallen on hard times.

 

on the other hand, there was not the mass media that we have today, the ability to manipulate, mis-lead, when the constitution was written, nor were there the vast fortunes at stake as there are today, the Founding Fathers were concerned with forming a nation out of 13 colonies, they did not wish to build fortunes across the globe.

 

just last week, on national television, a national security advisor stated that americans are going to have to learn a new defintion of privacy, that, we no longer have the right to anonymity, this comment seemed to pass without much attention.

 

this supreme court ruling, will be a bell weather of sorts. have the fortunes guided agendas', reached a position that is predominant, in the United States?

 

if a nation is under attack, from the outside, common sense dictates that internal defense should be promoted. i do not understand the concept of being at war with terrorism, a form of warfare in which the enemy is not a nationstate, that being at war with terrorism, we can foster an open border policy. these two concepts, protection against terrorism, and having open borders, to me are mutually incompatible.

 

one wonders if there is another agenda at play?

 

the north american union for example?

 

i do not expect a ground breaking ruling from the supreme court on the 2nd amendment, but, i am curious to see the language of what the court rules, what may the ruling, through its language, leave the door open for?

 

 

[Dylan]

Sorry, just couldn't help but nitpick a little...

 

We, and I guess I, have unconsciously come to accept the Constitution and its amendments as being set in stone. They aren't. It's just that there have not been any new amendments passed for a very long time...not during our lifetimes.

 

 

Amendment 27 enacted May 7, 1992

Amendment 26 enacted July 1, 1971

Amendment 25 enacted February 23, 1967

Amendment 24 enacted January 23, 1964

Amendment 23 enacted March 29, 1961

 

[The Lone Ranger]

Plaintiff's atty website:

 

http://dcguncase.com/blog/

[LIONHART]

Some of what has been written on the Brady site;

 

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Most Significant Second Amendment Case in History

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider D.C v. Heller this term. By agreeing to hear the appeal by the District of Columbia in the Parker/Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety.

 

The D.C. Court of Appeals' decision in the Parker (now Heller) case was an example of judicial activism at its worst. The Court of Appeals ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives.

 

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the Court of Appeals's decision, sensible gun laws could be at risk...from the long-standing machine gun ban...to the Brady criminal background check law...to local and state gun laws like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style assault weapons.

Edited November 25, 2007 by LIONHART

[October1971]

I hope the Brady Bunch is sweating thier A... off over this.

However, they don't post that kind of stuff unless they are planning to use it for propaganda to THEIR troops. Which means they are bound to be gearing up to do battle...!

 

Don't ever underestimate these liberal, "Constitution re-writers..."

 

 

[Charlie]

Phil,

 

What if the Court rules that the 2nd is an individual right,

but that "reasonable restrictions/limitations" or some such wording, could be

allowed, like no more new mg's, or no_____ (fill in the blank)?

 

What if the Leftists were to say this: "Okay, dammit, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, but since machineguns can only be owned if they're registered with the BATFE, a reasonable restriction, then semi-auto versions need to be also registered the same way."

 

Will the battle then become the argument over what constitutes a "reasonable restriction"?

 

Charlie