Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Supreme Court rules today (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=277518)

AG Capone | 06-26-2008 08:12 AM
Supreme Court rules today What do you think? I think they'll affirm our rights and many states will have to shed some laws. Well, I hope anyways.

Canadian-guerilla | 06-26-2008 08:30 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today on one hand, if they uphold your rights we all could be that much closer to a false flag on the other hand, if they outlaw firearms expect a big MSM blitz on " the evils of gun ownership " if guns are outlawed, only outlaws (domestic terrorits) will have guns June 26, 2008 could be an important date in the future of the US

educatedredneck | 06-26-2008 08:42 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today something evil is afoot

learn2swim | 06-26-2008 08:58 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today They will strike down the D.C. gun ban, but will say states have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will look like a win for gun onwers, but it opens up the right of the state to take it away. I can't see how the D.C. gun ban applies to the states anyways. D.C. is a municipal corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...ia_Organic_Act

AG Capone | 06-26-2008 09:02 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2swim (Post 1163826) They will strike down the D.C. gun ban, but will say states have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will look like a win for gun onwers, but it opens up the right of the state to take it away. I can't see how the D.C. gun ban applies to the states anyways. D.C. is a municipal corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...ia_Organic_Act
I see your point, that would be very bad.:banghead: Well I'm hoping for the Supreme Court to rule on the wording of the 2nd ammend as it applies to US citizens, in our favor that is.:smokin:

SLV>GLD | 06-26-2008 09:05 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today What is so hard about "...shall not be infringed"?

Silver Shield | 06-26-2008 09:56 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today I think it will be another brick in the wall....

WilliamC | 06-26-2008 10:21 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today From http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ Court: A constitutional right to a gun Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off | Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This! Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales

Codger | 06-26-2008 10:22 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today DC ban Shot down... More coming

Twisted Avatar | 06-26-2008 10:25 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2swim (Post 1163826) They will strike down the D.C. gun ban, but will say states have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will look like a win for gun onwers, but it opens up the right of the state to take it away. I can't see how the D.C. gun ban applies to the states anyways. D.C. is a municipal corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...ia_Organic_Act
Exactly!!! What they concede in one hand........ they will snatch twice as much with the other. 3 card monte..... they wouldnt let you play, if there was any doubt you were going to loose.

Codger | 06-26-2008 10:48 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today I agree Vike. That one jumped out at me as well. As soon as the decision is actually posted I'll post it here. The disenting opinion will make you retch.

Big_Rob | 06-26-2008 10:48 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today WTF is this "at least in your home" bullshit?!? Im not happy with this ruling at all. IMO it didnt go far enough to affirm our absolute right to bear arms.

Codger | 06-26-2008 10:50 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Here is the full decision. Read it carefully! ...dang it, file too big. We should really adjust that. Here's the link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Codger | 06-26-2008 10:55 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today This is an interesting paragraph. Thank god that last line snuck in there! " There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be �necessary to the security of a free state.� See 3 Story �1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary�an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226 , 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 25 Opinion of the Court better able to resist tyranny."

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:05 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today more... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those �in common use at the time.� 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of �dangerous and unusual weapons.� See 4 Blackstone 148�149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271�272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383�384 (1824); O�Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service�M-16 rifles and the like�may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment�s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and ������ 26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. 56 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Twisted Avatar | 06-26-2008 11:08 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Rob (Post 1163998) WTF is this "at least in your home" bullshit?!? Im not happy with this ruling at all. IMO it didnt go far enough to affirm our absolute right to bear arms.
And it wont ......... this is just wordsmithing while they perform a backdoor gun grab. T

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:11 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Here are the only acceptable disqualifiers (this is good I think): It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment �consistent with [respondent�s] prayer for relief.� Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that �if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,� by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane.

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:12 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Big Rob, Where did you find the "at least in your home" quote. I cannot find it in the opinion. Is it from a press release? Media spin would explain it. I may have missed it as I am still reading.

GOLD DUCK | 06-26-2008 11:14 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today QWAK,I guess that it also includes COWS with GUNS and DUCKS with GUNS and CHICKENS with CHOPPERS!?:hahaha::haha::haha: YouTube - Cows with guns
YouTube - Cows with guns
the DUCK

GoldMaster | 06-26-2008 11:19 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1164042) And it wont ......... this is just wordsmithing while they perform a backdoor gun grab. T
So true, all this was a waste of time and money, there was nothing to debate. Its clear our forefathers interest was to protect us from at the time little brother which they knew would grow into big brother. If this is what was intended for America, we would have never revolted. Might as well turn our country back over to the heavily taxed and oppressive government of the motherland.

KingTheoden | 06-26-2008 11:47 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamC (Post 1163957) Justice Antonin Scalia�s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyvike (Post 1163990) �The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.� This paragraph worries me, as it seems to open the door for the regulation of "weapons...specifically designed for military use..." i.e. 1911's, AR15's, M1A's, AK's, SK's, Mausers, etc....
Exactly. This is NOT a victory. This is akin to a tank ramming into our trench while broadcasting the message 'This is not an attack, stand down. We are not attacking you.' I am really surprised how many people are buying into this ruling as some 'victory.'

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:51 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by KingTheoden (Post 1164128) Exactly. This is NOT a victory. This is akin to a tank ramming into our trench while broadcasting the message 'This is not an attack, stand down. We are not attacking you.' I am really surprised how many people are buying into this ruling as some 'victory.'
Theo, read the ruling. Take your time and plod through it. This did go in our favor when held up against previous laws and rulings. At least that is my humble opinion. I posted a link to it above. The PDF was too large for the website.

RealityCheck | 06-26-2008 11:52 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today "The Supreme Court rules Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting" That headline should tell you something.

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:53 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Well said Vike. I too am satisfied for the most part. Just wait until you read the dissent. It's terrible.

Codger | 06-26-2008 11:55 AM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck (Post 1164140) "The Supreme Court rules Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting" That headline should tell you something.
QUIT READING HEADLINES! We all know they are full of it. I don't understand why people choose to ignor a primary source when it is right there in front of them. Read the opinion and then tell people what it really says. Combat the media influenced ignorance.

KingTheoden | 06-26-2008 12:16 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by Codger (Post 1164138) Theo, read the ruling. Take your time and plod through it. This did go in our favor when held up against previous laws and rulings. At least that is my humble opinion. I posted a link to it above. The PDF was too large for the website.
Thanks, I'll pull it up.

KingTheoden | 06-26-2008 12:25 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Quote:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47�54.
Quote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court�s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller�s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those �in common use at the time� finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54�56.
I will continue with it later. But, by page 2 we can see that this was not a victory because it upholds the ability of government to ban certain types of weapons.

Codger | 06-26-2008 12:47 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today You're still in the summary and the "in the home" statement is preceded with "as an example". Once you get around to the whole of the opinion I think you'll find some good points. Read some of my earlier posts with the direct quotations regarding military style weopons, and disqualifying factors. This ruling should help reign in the over enforcement that we are seeing all the time. Certain things, such as denying permits under questionable judgement are addressed by this opinion. The idea of defence against tyranny being central to the amendment is enforced as one of three main reasons. The list goes on. There are several places where the country has been slowly eroding the 2nd amendment that have now been addressed and defined in a current ruling and it does go in our favor. Take the second amendment as a line going from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most liberal (classic meaning denoting unimpedded or free). The second Amendment when ratified put us at about an 8 (debatable I know), recent enforcement actions have brought us down to a 2, and this ruling puts us at a 7.

RealityCheck | 06-26-2008 01:44 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today I still haven't read it, but Alex Jones is saying it is what he expected. ie, its not good.

Codger | 06-26-2008 02:13 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Don't take offence to this please, but is having Alex Jones interpret your world any better than having Fox news do it? Trust yourself to understand the real thing before taking some other paid journalist's opinion as truth. Read the ruling. In fact, I bet if everyone on this board constantly went to the source of whatever matter we are discussing, we would all be in a much better mood.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM. |
Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Supreme Court rules today

Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - Supreme Court rules today (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=277518)

45 ACP | 06-26-2008 02:49 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Bottome line: The Second Amendment protects and individual rather than a collective right. That is what the SCOTUS upheld. That is a start and sure beats a collective rights interpretation. That also was the scope of Heller. You can't undo all gun control laws in one decsion.

buff01 | 06-26-2008 03:04 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today The fact that 4/9 of them think that a right mentioned in the BILL OF RIGHTS is not an individual right is beyond belief. I see this decision as a two edged sword... the individual nature of the 2nd has been cleared, but the right to keep and bear has certainly been infringed even by the majority opinion.

KingTheoden | 06-26-2008 03:29 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 ACP (Post 1164507) Bottome line: The Second Amendment protects and individual rather than a collective right. That is what the SCOTUS upheld.
Wrong. They did not uphold the right to keep and bear arms. They stated that citizens have a malleable privilege to keep 'normal' guns. If they upheld the right, the Supreme Court would have overturned all restrictions on the ownership of arms (at least on the Federal level if they were to suddenly drop the incorporation doctrine). A right is an immutable, unalienable ability granted to us by God, not by any government. I would suggest people who think this is some victory for us to read my above post. For the Supreme Court to say things like there could be restrictions against weapons not 'in the common use,' it demonstrates positively that the court does NOT respect the purpose of the Second Amendment. Is it anything to celebrate the government said that individuals can own weapons (something that we have done for the past 220 plus years) BUT that such ownership is subject to restriction? Can't wait to start the Second American Revolution with a single shot 22... (Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are different because they generally do not offer defensible uses.)

Iptuous | 06-26-2008 04:14 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by skyvike (Post 1163990) “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” This paragraph worries me, as it seems to open the door for the regulation of "weapons...specifically designed for military use..." i.e. 1911's, AR15's, M1A's, AK's, SK's, Mausers, etc....
I don't read that as exclusive, but saying that those items are included in the definition. The previous and subsequent paragraphs include what we want. Quote:
The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today..... -Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”..... -The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity..... -Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”.... -the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
This seems good to me in this regard.... ETA: i just noticed you noticed this, too..... lotsa reading :wink:

107.8682 | 06-26-2008 04:26 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today The (correct) third option is missing: The Supreme Court will proclaim, in its usual lawyerese sophistry, that the "Second Amendment guarantees the right to firearms," but government may "regulate that 'right' in accordance with law." In other words, "shall not be infringed" means the exact opposite.

flash91 | 06-26-2008 04:27 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by buff01 (Post 1164529) The fact that 4/9 of them think that a right mentioned in the BILL OF RIGHTS is not an individual right is beyond belief. I see this decision as a two edged sword... the individual nature of the 2nd has been cleared, but the right to keep and bear has certainly been infringed even by the majority opinion.
Some of the minority opinions are scary in their interpretation. I haven't read them all, but one seems to argue that the people have a right to serve in the army with weapons. Beats me how you can have a collective right without an individual right.

EireGoBragh | 06-26-2008 04:35 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today What's disturbing to me is that it narrowly passed

107.8682 | 06-26-2008 04:43 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by skyvike (Post 1163859) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; Congress is not obligated to conform with the requirements of the Constitution in Washington, DC. They have "exclusive" control i.e. THEY have control over DC. They can do in DC what most people seem to think they can do in the whole country, which is vote in any law they want. How this will shake out is anybody's guess but it wouldn't surprise me if the Supremes took "silent judicial notice" of the above and reaffirmed DC's authority to ban guns (without explaining), which will be "interpreted" by states and federal courts as the "states"' authority to regulate (and infringe upon) the ownership of arms by the people. The friggin' games they play....
The Second Amendment "amended" that in red.

107.8682 | 06-26-2008 04:48 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Quote:
Originally Posted by flash91 (Post 1164689) Some of the minority opinions are scary in their interpretation. I haven't read them all, but one seems to argue that the people have a right to serve in the army with weapons. Beats me how you can have a collective right without an individual right.
The same ones who will not accept the obvious, overt, clear, unavoidable "individual right" to keep and bear arms (that is, own and use them) who ALSO believe that a non-existent, never acknowledged, unconstitutional (since it deprives one of life) "right to an abortion" is in the Constitution.

extremist | 06-26-2008 05:40 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today Certain people will go out of their way to find something negative, even if a decision goes their way for once. I may not be happy about black helicopters criss-crossing nanotrails over my armed compound, but I'll generally drink the half-full cup. You can't have your cake and smoke it, too.

Iptuous | 06-26-2008 07:30 PM
Re: Supreme Court rules today So i'm coming back from ChinaMart getting my weekly ration of WWB, and i hear on NPR wailing and gnashing of teeth about the decision...... For about minute, i kept getting pissed at what they were babbling. Then i realized that they were just spouting the same garbage i had been pissed over in the past, but this time it wasn't gloating, it was whining! Yeeeaaaah! Made the drive niiiice.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM. |
Page 2 of 2 | < | 1 | 2
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM