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

SECOND AMENDMENT DECISION MAKES ME SICK

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Satch, Jun 26, 2008.

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

    Satch TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    DC can still require that someone must have a license to "carry" a handgun in their OWN GODDAM HOME??!!! Excuse me while I f@ckin throw up.
     
  2. cubancigar2000

    cubancigar2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,521
    Location:
    Idaho
    Thus crap is over until Obama gets in then we will start all over again
     
  3. Buddy O

    Buddy O TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    197
    "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom"
     
  4. bill4807

    bill4807 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Here's the link from the Supreme Court, all 157 pages in PDF format.

    Bill
     
  5. tomk2

    tomk2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    320
    "Because Heller conceded at oral argument
    that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
    and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
    his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
    Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
    rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
    must issue him a license to carry it in the home."


    To me, that is a command that any government agency that seeks to regulate firearm posession is compelled to grant or "shall issue" license to own firearms. I see much good coming from this ruling. Chicago's handgun ban will fall. All people in states with restrictive laws can begin working upon local and state solutions, and there is a baseline assumption that you have the right to own firearms until proven otherwise.
     
  6. BigM-Perazzi

    BigM-Perazzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,542
    Location:
    HELL, MICHIGAN
    TomK,

    That is a very valid interpretation....
     
  7. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,763
    The fact that we have the right, is the key point.
     
  8. spitter

    spitter Well-Known Member TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,355
    Location:
    Prairie State
    TomK2

    Going a bit further, I would argue that regardless of whether Heller conceded the regulation position, the Court was predisposed to allow reasonable regulation and I don't think anyone expected unrestricted firearms ownership.

    Missed you at the Handicap Challenge.

    Jay
     
  9. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,763
    It's not so smple to overturn a court's decision. Law is based on previous court decisions.
     
  10. Seitz Shooter

    Seitz Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    The DC mayor just stated in a press conference that semi automatic handguns and full auto handguns, will still be banned. No kidding on full autos!

    Adios, Dirk
     
  11. John Thompson

    John Thompson TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    756
    DC has a great history, Mayors, crine rates, welfare recipients, demacratic rule for decades. What would you expect.
     
  12. 7 straight

    7 straight Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    49
    Try living in new york state
     
  13. alfermann66

    alfermann66 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    852
    Overturning precedent is not a problem as long as you have arrogant idiots like Kennedy on the court (i.e., the total disregard of precedent in the enemy combatant case). I smell him in this ruling. Scalia and others probably had to throw him a bone to get as much as they did.

    Buz
     
  14. Gold E

    Gold E TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    481
    As a reader and writer of technical documents, I applaud the Court’s decision but make note that we should all stand to learn that succinct, grammatical correctness is necessary to the survivability of documents under interpretive scrutiny; especially if that scrutiny is judicial in nature.

    The second amendment is a classic example of innocently adding wording, at the time of writing that is used many years later to introduce a cloud of doubt and thus a debate of interpretation. The prefatory clause referring to a militia was, and is, simply not needed.

    On the other hand, I’m not so naïve to think that someone would have tried to introduce interpretation had the Second Amendment been written simply: The right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It’s certainly a great day for those of us who choose to keep and bear arms.

    Mike
     
  15. Boxer

    Boxer TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    86
    scary part of this decision is that 4 supreme court justices seem to have trouble reading and comprehending the constitution....the wording of the 2nd. amendment seems like a 5th. grader could understand it...VERY scary
     
  16. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,134
    Whats scary is...4 of the them voted the other way. Now you know how important supreme court appointments are. It's Bull$71t, but that's the way it is.
     
  17. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    They really do have trouble reading. Cannot understand individual rights but see words, like abortion, that are not in the constitution.
     
  18. Voolfie

    Voolfie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    The fact that four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court maintain that it doesn’t matter what the constitution says - or what the authors of that document said they meant…is most troubling. We have, for fifty years, allowed our politicians to weasel out of making hard decisions by dumping them in the court’s lap. Now, we profess to be shocked that the court has come to believe that it SHOULD be deciding policy as well as interpreting law.

    Stevens’ dissent clings to a fabulous interpretation of the 1939 Miller decision – and Breyer’s maintains that modern conditions and situations make the second amendment problematic, so it should be ignored. Both of these opinions willfully pervert the plain meaning of the document as well as deny that constitutionally approved method for removing outdated or troublesome provisions of the charter: the Amendment process. But skirting the will of the people is a cherished methodology of those who don’t want to let a little thing, like the constitution, obstruct their imposition of “social justice” on us all.

    Truly, we have just barely dodged a bullet…so to speak. The work only begins now. We did not get to where we are in this country overnight - we will not come back from it that way. We ALL have to get involved. Run for your local school board...planning board...board of county commissioners, etc. The people in positions of power over us are some of the most frightening you'll ever meet. It's up to us. As it always has been. JW
     
  19. Gold E

    Gold E TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    481
    Well put Voolfie.

    Breyer’s position is particularly disturbing; "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

    To write such a statement clearly indicates that he feels no compelence to abide by the constraints of the bench on which he sits!
     
  20. Satch

    Satch TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    DC can still require that someone must have a license to "carry" a handgun in their OWN GODDAM HOME??!!! Excuse me while I f@ckin throw up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.