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

Supreme Court Rules IN OUR FAVOR

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

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

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    Supreme Court Rules IN OUR FAVOR 5-4

    10:12
    Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.

    from SCOTUSblog.com

    10:13
    Ben Winograd -

    The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



    Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

    Link to 157 Page Opinion:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
     
  2. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,567
    Location:
    Southeast Michigan - O/S Detroit
    Justice Scalia, in the majority opinion, wrote that individual gun ownership is not dependent on belonging to a militia. He also cited the individual right to use guns for legal purposes.

    More to come.

    Best,
    Dennis
     
  3. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    This is great....but remember November as the ruling was 5-4.

    This goes to show you how IMPORTANT the next judicial appointments will be!!!
     
  4. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    Link to the 157 Page Opinion

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
     
  5. highflyer

    highflyer TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,474
    Thank God for Bush and the conservatives that were in the Senate to approve his nominations. We won't be so lucky next time.
     
  6. saluki68

    saluki68 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    The scary part is only 5-4 decision & demonstrates importance of Presidential election in Nov. Stevens disent included "..the majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit tools of elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons.." In all due respect to Justice Stevens, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT TO DO! The 2nd Amendment guarantees all the others. Tom
     
  7. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    Justice Stevens just wasn't with it on this Constitutional issue.

    He may be OK in some convuluted area, but this is just too clear to use the type of arguments that he proposed with his dissention.
     
  8. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,915
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    Maybe justice Stevens has early stages of alzheimers..
     
  9. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    5 to 4 decision. It should of been a knockout. It's scary that 4 clowns in black robes could think that way. I didn't go to law school and have had no problem understanding the 2nd amendment.
     
  10. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    The people polls averaged about 75% pro, what kind of idiots represent us?
     
  11. fssberson

    fssberson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,375
    I wonder if Stevens would use the same logic [or illogic] regarding the 1st Amendment, i.e. the writers of the constitution 200 years ago really didn't mean to guarantee free speech in the future. The writers and founders of this country were incredibly insightful and wrote the first ten amendments specifically to protect the people from governmental abuse. The fight is not over and voting this November is critical. Fred
     
  12. Boxer

    Boxer TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    86
    The EXACT kind of idiots our forefathers had in mind when they guaranteed our right to bear arms
     
  13. jackmitch

    jackmitch TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    815
    amen boxer you said it all.jackmitch
     
  14. Dove Commander

    Dove Commander TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,364
    Boxer, thats a great point. You ARE EXACTLY CORRECT. Scary isn't it?
     
  15. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,293
    Before you get all happy, read the fine print! If you look closely you will find that the five judges left way more than ample wiggle room to allow "reasonable" regulation to be allowed.

    Now what do you think Sarah Brady and her cohorts, including the four black robed and black-hearted "Big Brother" judges would consider "Reasonable"? What would the next case coming down the pipe be? Would it be considered "reasonable" to make the law say that only homes without persons under the age of 21 could have an unsecured and potentially loaded firearm handy? After all, the standard mantra of the Soft-Headed (opps, I should have said soft-hearted) (No on second thought I will stick with my original statement) liberals is "Its to protect the children."

    Given that level of "reasonable" THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT PROTECTED BY THIS HELLER DECISION. Any "Right" that can controlled by someone else determining that the limits placed on "the right" are "reasonable" is not a right but a government granted, possibly temporarily only, privilege!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.