|
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. |
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 |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
something evil is afoot |
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 |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
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: |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
What is so hard about "...shall not be infringed"?
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
I think it will be another brick in the wall....
|
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 |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
DC ban Shot down... More coming
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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 |
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 better able to resist tyranny."Opinion of the Court |
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 right.the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
T |
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. |
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.
|
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:
the DUCK |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
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. |
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
|
Re: Supreme Court rules today
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM