1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Court throws out Phila. gun laws

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by grnberetcj, Sep 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    The PA court still has common sense.

    Read the above link.

    Curt
     
  2. Dahaub

    Dahaub Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,309
    Curt that is exacly what I have been saying about the Supreme court. When they make a decision about a subject they make it once and they most likely will never in our lifetime change that decision. So, when the rest of the guys here on Trapshooter are running around scared of someone taking their guns and the right to own and bear arms I have no fear of it. The supreme court of the land has made the decision in my favor and I'm satisfied that it will never be reversed. So I am satisfied that any city, town, state, village , Commonwealth or Province cannot change my right to own and bear arms. I also leave that arguement out of the thinking on my voting for candidates in the up coming election. What those newly elected officials do with my rights are of little consequence in the long run. The ACLU and the Supreme Court will make sure the laws that are made will not take my rights away. All across this great country of ours there have been laws taken off the books when challenged by the ACLU about the restrictions of guns. All of this has happened since the supreme court decision in the gun owners favor. Dan
     
  3. AJ100

    AJ100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,575
    "I also leave that arguement out of the thinking on my voting for candidates in the up coming election."

    "What those newly elected officials do with my rights are of little consequence in the long run."

    So you are voting for obama?

    AJ100
     
  4. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    Dahaud,

    Where do you find the ACLU involved in 2nd Amendment rights? I've attached their position statement on gun control, and linked it here, also.

    Kip

    Second Amendment


    Updated: 7/8/2008
    The Second Amendment provides: "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."

    ACLU POSITION
    Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

    The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

    The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

    ANALYSIS
    Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

    Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

    Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
     
  5. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Unless your an atheist, communist, child raper, cop killer, pervert or muslim, the ACLU has no interest in you.
     
  6. sammyd95

    sammyd95 TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    358
    just like they have already put mandates and stipulations on our RIGHT to carry !ahhhh it wont happen !
     
  7. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The ignorance here is amazing.<br>
    <br>
    SCOTUS ruled in 1939 US v Miller et al that the firearms that were protected by the Second Amendment were those of "contemporary military utility". Today, that means the AR15 and similar firearms. So why then, Dan, are these being banned on a local, state, and national level? Why are Obama and Biden trying to ban them now? After all, there is a Supreme Court decision that resolved this, as you said.<br>
    <br>
    The Keller decision said that while we have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and "hunting" (the word "hunting" is NOT in the Second Amendment and was not mentioned whatsoever in the 1939 US v Miller decision) the court found that there could be "reasonable restrictions". So now you have Washington DC declaring it "reasonable" to call a semi-automatic handgun a "machinegun". (Yes, I know this is in the process of being addressed.) Is it "reasonable" that states like Maryland and California have bureaucrats who decide on whim what firearms that yesterday were "sporting" and OK, are today "evil assault weapons" or are not politically correct enough to own?<br>
    <br>
    I can go on and on with this ad nauseum. I should not have to, because gun owners more than any other group in this country should be keenly aware that we must be ever vigilant of our rights. Yet, we constantly not only have to do battle with hard core anti-gunners, we also have to battle the Fifth Columnists and Quislings in our own ranks. Why is that?<br>
    <br>
    I'l make it plain and simple. If you are not actively safeguarding your Second Amendment rights, and are supporting those who are trying to take our rights away, then YOU are an anti-gunner. Regardless of whether you own firearms or not. Period.
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Quote:<i> "The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia."</i><br>
    <br>
    The ACLU is ignoring United States v. Cruikshank (1876).<br>
    <br>
    Again, be vigilant, or be disarmed.
     
  9. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    You may have a "right" to own and use firearms for sporting purposes and self defense, but don't think for a moment that the anti's won't take EVERY opportunity to make it difficult to exercise that right. They will burden you with paperwork, regulations, asinine restrictions, confusing regulations, registration, AND obscene fees to make it nearly impossible to afford. Think about all of the ridiculous laws attempting to require "imprinting" or "stamping" of fired cases. Registration on ammunition and taxes on firearms and ammunition can put it out of reach of normal people.
     
  10. fritzi93

    fritzi93 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    321
    Re the ACLU position:

    "Collective" rights are worth exactly nothing. Unless I as an individual can claim and exercise a right, it isn't one. For purported legal "experts", they should know better.
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Quackshot, quote:<i>"....AND obscene fees to make it nearly impossible to afford...."</i><br>
    <br>
    Keep in mind that congress tried to put a 5000% tax on certain handgun ammunnition. You could buy it and own it - if you could afford it. Along these lines there have periodically been attempted bans or draconian taxes on inexpensive handguns, effectively pricing them higher than most top of the line guns. This was designed to keep guns out of the hands of the lower class.<br>
    <br>
    Don't forget this (from the link above):<br>
    <br>
    <i>"FactCheck supplies Obama's quote from Heller decision day, beginning with "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms..", and promising, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."<br>
    <br>
    Well, that Obama has "always believed" in the individual Second Amendment right did not prevent him from proposing a national ban on concealed carry, a ban on 90% of gun stores, a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammunition--as the FactCheck article itself reports. If a candidate proposed banning 90% of bookstores and a huge tax increase on books, it might be justifiable to predict that he would be "the most anti-book president in American history"--notwithstanding his proclaimed belief in the individual First Amendment right.</i><br>
    <br>
    Obama says you have a right to your gun, IF you can afford the 500% tax increase (which currently is 10% and 11%). Basically making gun ownership and hunting a thing for the rich. Like the elitist Democrats who trap shoot, and go deer hunting while crawling on their bellies with their double barrel shotgun.<br>
    <br>
    Please, stop coming up with excuses pandering to the anti-gunners. Please, just stop BEING an anti-gunner.
     
  12. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    What is utterly amazing about the ACLU is their intentional misrepresentation of rights. "fritzi93" is exactly correct. There are no collective rights, only those of individuals. The Bill of Rights, in every instance, refers to people, not as a collective, but individuals. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

    US v. Miller was never finished, since one of the parties died, therefore ending any possibility of appeal. The issue was never really finalized.

    However, the Nevada ACLU is taking firearms cases, and will plead as individual rights.

    Dennis
     
  13. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Dahaub,


    Quit blowing smoke up our ass. You were a Union-voting Democrat even BEFORE the US Supreme Court made its decision in June, so don't try to sell us this line that now all of a sudden, since the Supreme Court has protected us forever, you can safely "switch over" to disregarding the 2nd amendment in your voting decisions. You've been disregarding it all along, now you just feel like you have more justification for it.



    Any thinking Union member here would be absolutely ashamed of you.
     
  14. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    Dahaub, the next president of our United States is going to pick at least 2 Supreme Court Justices. If obama is elected, his selections are going to be super lib activist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The 5-4 margin of support for an individual right to own a gun evaporates with the election of obama. And before that deck gets stacked, there are the cabinet and agency appointments and direction. Dahaub, perhaps you are complacent because you are really an anti-gunner. I am a life member of the NRA and I will continue my support of the right to keep and bear arms and I will never write the words that everything is OK - because it is not OK - there is always more to do. The forces against us are great and they are not giving up.
     
  15. bill1949

    bill1949 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,732
    People just don't get "it". They don't have to ban our guns. They can and will put a heavy tax on components and ammo so most of us can't afford to shoot anymore. A gun without ammo is an expensive club...Bill
     
  16. AJ100

    AJ100 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,575
    dahaub, No answer on who you are voting for?

    AJ100
     
  17. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    </I>Thought I would do Brian a favor and close his italics... :)
     
  18. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,538
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    I find this thread fascinating a poster who's politics are a tad on the liberal side says.

    "Curt that is exactly what I have been saying about the Supreme court. When they make a decision about a subject they make it once and they most likely will never in our lifetime change that decision. So, when the rest of the guys here on Trapshooter are running around scared of someone taking their guns and the right to own and bear arms I have no fear of it."

    Something that DuHaub is not understanding or is asking us to believe he is not understanding. The law still allows for "reasonable restrictions" the state that I live in(Massachusetts)has restrictions on the type and as they put it the quality of the handguns that can be sold in this state and these restrictions are in place "in the interest of public safety".

    This is about those restrictions.

    "Chapter 140, section 123, of the Massachusetts General Laws states that a dealer may only sell guns that can pass a drop test, are not prone to repeat firing, and which meet a certain materials standard.

    In order to make this requirement understandable, the state approved “independent testing laboratories” and a testing procedure. Manufacturers of handguns may now choose to pay these labs to perform the tests mentioned in the law.

    The labs sent their certified results to the Gun Control Advisory Board, which reviews the results to ensure the tests were performed properly and that the guns passed the tests. They then vote on whether to recommend that the gun be on the Approved Firearms Roster. The Executive Office of Public Safety then acts on these recommendations and publishes a new roster. These regulations are found in 501 CMR 7.00.

    Some smaller manufacturers can not afford to pay for the testing. Still other manufacturers object to the whole concept of the testing, and have no wish to comply. And manufacturers of top of the line competition models costing $1500 and up have no desire to pay someone to drop three of their firearms onto a concrete surface. Therefore, before the testing laboratories were even approved by the state, it was clear several product lines would not be available through Massachusetts licensed dealers."

    These restrictions on handguns and their manufacturers were in place before the resent US Supreme Court decision. The State however has no intention of changing these restrictions as they say that they come under the ""reasonable restrictions" allowance in the ruling. If you think that these type of restrictions can not be applied on a National basis you had better think again.

    Bob Lawless

    PS There are very few manufacturers on the list.
     
  19. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Also keep in mind two importation laws that affect firearms. The 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1989 Bush Ban, codified as Section 922R. And then there are the Presidential Executive Orders.<br>
    <br>
    The 68GCA restricts the importation of many handguns that cannot meet a complicated points system. It was designed to prevent the importation of "cheap and dangerous handguns" (dangerous as in poorly made). Because of the points system, expensive, high quality handguns like the Walther PPK were banned from importation because they are "Saturday Night Specials".<br>
    <br>
    922R bans numerous firearms, mainly rifles but also handguns and shotguns, from importation. It's based on a features test. If the firearm has so many restricted features, it cannot be imported.<br>
    <br>
    And there are Presidential Executive Orders banning imortation of firearms from certain countries. We were getting a lot of firearms from China, for example. The "bad boys" that Clinton did not want imported were neutered clones of the AK47 and SKS. Note that these passed the 922R criteria. Not good enough. Clinton, as President, has the authority to ban any imports from any country he wants using an Executive Order. So he banned all guns from China. This meant no 1911 clones, no bolt action 22LR training rifles (a copy of the WWII Mauser trainer), and other guns that could not remotely be considered "assault weapons".<br>
    <br>
    Why should this be important for Fudds and Obama "sportsmen"?<br>
    <br>
    Because periodically in Congress a bill comes up, either in stand alone form or as a rider, to ban the DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ANY FIREARM THAT CANNOT BE IMPORTED. So if that Chinese .22LR bolt action training rifle cannot be imported, it can't be made and sold here either, by any manufacturer. If another country cannot export an AR15 to the US, then all AR15 production for citizens ceases.<br>
    <br>
    This is touted as a "reasonable" gun law. It's not. It's a backdoor attempt to ban whole classes of firearms. And as shown, they do not care if the firearm that falls under these laws really fits the criteria or not.<br>
    <br>
    Let me be more specific. If for some reason a clone of the Winchester 1892 lever action rifle could not be imported, then Winchester/USRA could not make and sell it either.<br>
    <br>
    I'm sure some of you can think of imported shotguns that are clones of other popular shotguns. Take it from there.<br>
    <br>
    The real bottom line here is - a hell of a lot of us "fanatical" gun owners have been fighting these backdoor bans for decades. And we've had little support to indeed counter-support from Fudds and Democratic "sportsmen". gentlemen, when the chips are down, and the gunowners you've failed to support all these years have had their firearms banned, WHO are YOU going to turn to to help you out? At that point, we'll simply ask - "Why didn't YOU help us?" And we've already seen this with apathy over whether a trap or skeet range gets shut down, or duck hunters have to use steel shot. It's hard to rally others to help you when you will not help us, or even actively work against us.
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    And, from another website, here's a post a friend of mine made on this issue:<br>
    <br>
    Posted By: A Legal-type Guy<br>
    Date: 9/28/08 18:59<br>
    <br>
    Both Gura and the Brady dweebs believe......that Heller is not a barrier to gun control at all. They each said so at a legal seminar last week. Since Alan Gura was the attorney for Heller, and since the Brady weenies wrote an amicus brief, at least one of them should be viewed as authoritative.<br>
    <br>
    While the Court acknowledged an individual right (yeah!), the Court simultaneously allowed for a whole host of infringements, against certain persons, and against certain "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Since all weapons are "dangerous", the sole test appears to be "unusual" weapons, which can apparently be banned freely. All machineguns are unusual, because the government restricted them since birth. Glocks used to be unusual. Every innovation will be unusual. This allows for nibbling at the edges again, because there will always be unusually large or unusually small guns, unusually penetrating or unusually expanding bullets, unusually cheap or unusually accurate guns. There will always be a largest legal caliber, so they are attacking the .50 BMG round, and will continue to do so. Silencers are unusual, so are flash enhancers. Sabots are unusual.<br>
    <br>
    The Brady twits think that this Constitutional right will be evaluated on either a "rational basis" test, or some sort of intermediate scrutiny. Gura seems to think that it will be "strict scrutiny" like every other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.<br>
    <br>
    Either way, it matters not a bit that the Court acknowledged the right, that's no safeguard at all. As proof, look what the DC city council did immediately after having their law shot down: They enacted new restrictions. maybe half a dozen cities repealed their almost identical laws, but that hardly means that they've abandoned gun bans.<br>
    <br>
    Let's say that we were successful in changing the Constitution to safeguard our firearm rights, and we managed to put a clear, non-ambiguous prohibition in against gun control; something that didn't allow total bans, didn't allow substantial bans, didn't even allow the slightest infringement against our gun rights; something that nobody could misinterpret; something like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does anyone here think that would block gun bans and expansions of the "prohibited person" categories?<br>
    <br>
    The Brady pussies are already saying that Heller only means that government can't ban all handguns within the home, and all other regulation is presumptively valid, including bans on those unusual semi-automatic "assault weapons", bans on possessing guns outside the home, bans on "some" ammunition, etc.<br>
    <br>
    Our enemies will never stop until they are dead. The thought of guns makes their withered testicles shrink, and they will only feel better when nobody owns guns except for the criminals, and the rest of us are just as emasculated as they are.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.