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 to Hear DC Gun Ban

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by starshot2b, Nov 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. starshot2b

    starshot2b TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    704
    Hot off the presses....
     
  2. starshot2b

    starshot2b TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    704
    Hot off the presses....
     
  3. glenn mcleod

    glenn mcleod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    528
    This is good. We have our best chance with this court. If Hilary gets in the courts will be changed as soon as possible. Glenn
     
  4. starshot2b

    starshot2b TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    704
  5. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    This is great news...

    ...then wait until next year and it will finally be decided.
     
  6. maclellan1911

    maclellan1911 TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,226
    Glenn if Hitlerary gets in , Bill will be pardoned his record cleared and apointed to the supreme court. Just watch.......the biggest problem with the clintons, they aint dumb
     
  7. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Big Deal.


    Ruth Bada an' tha Supremes will render a tenuously-worded decision of importance only to the specific case at hand, rooted in jurisdictional jargon about "States' Rights," and we'll be no closer to victory than before. If I know these types, they will find some loophole, some arcane technicality, and rule only on that - leaving the greater question unanswered.




    Of course, maybe I'll be wrong, in which case...George W. Bush sure knows how to pick 'em, and is the greatest President ever!


    But I doubt it. Lawyers always protect their own. And they know that crystal-clarity in the law is _not_ their friend.


    If we think we're going to "run the table" here, we're going to be disappointed.
     
  8. Sgt. Mike

    Sgt. Mike TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    301
    "Laws are made by attorneys for attorneys". I agree that it is finally time to get the U.S. Supreme Court involved. If they rule to ban handguns/guns based on the word "militia" as our media wants, it will be an indication they studied law not history. Study laws in the different states about belonging to a "militia".

    Also I believe the U.S. Supreme court will make a ruling and at the end we will look at it and go HUH!!! The rule will be long and lengthy and open for a greater interpretation. If this was confusing wait for the brief. I guess in late June we will know something. Sgt. Mike
     
  9. Beancounter

    Beancounter TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    482
    It might serve to flush out some anti gun politicians before the election. That is good news. It may help to get some additional support to the many who sit on the sidelines and stupidly believe that it won't affect them (this would be pheasant hunters and most trapshooters). I agree with others here on narrow rulings and a refusal to have clarity. While it may not always be our friend, the law is all we have. Today - the PA legislature told the Gov to take a hike. So all is not lost, we have everything to fight for and this case will help us.

    "from my cold, dead hands"
    NRA Lifer
     
  10. perazzitms

    perazzitms TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    521
    Well, I see 2 'swing' votes. It's obvious who is going to vote what way. You have the Clintonites who are going to vote to uphold the ban. You have the smart ones who will take the Constitution at it's word and strike the ban down. There is 1, possibly 2 who are going to go with their guts. They're going to ask 1 question of themselves - "If I vote to strike the ban, what will the impact of 'unlimited' gun ownership be on society?" I don't think the answer is cut and dry.

    It seems like it should be simple.

    But remember, this is the court that said the Govt. could condemn your property, seize it, and sell it to a developer to build condos on. That one should have been cut and dry also.......

    $1 says they take the chinzy way out and drop it back to the lower court.
     
  11. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    This suit is ill advised - and on top of that the wrong battle was picked.

    Normally cases and controversies are on extremely narrow issues- even if the area is broad

    Not here -- because of the nature of the controversy- a total ban- the issue is do invidual rights trump governmental powers.

    First it has to be determined what right may exist- this goes to the heart of the 2nd amendment and maybe some other amendments also. If it is determined that no right exists- this case isnt narrow at all but will determine for all time that the 2d amendment does not apply to individuals but only to militias

    If would probably have been better if this case had not been brought- it was ill advised

    A much narrower issue would not have risked the whole show

    Contrary- a win isnt a broad win- but only goes to establish that absolute bans are not constitutional.

    So on the one side- you can have an absolute loss but on the other side you dont have an absolute win

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  12. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,005
    An ignorant ? from a dirt farmer.Does a militia have to have the blessing of the gov. or can there be private militias?

    Darr
     
  13. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,005
    An ignorant ? from a dirt farmer.Does a militia have to have the blessing of the gov. or can there be private militias?

    Darr
     
  14. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Did everyone read what Gene said?


    regards from Indiana


    buzz
     
  15. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    To bring a little clarity based upon some of the speculation posted above; this case is a constitutional law case. These are extremely rare cases where the Court actually interprets the meaning of wording in the Constitution and how that wording affects a particular case as opposed how established precedent affects a particular case. This is the Big Time.

    The ruling in the lower court, which is masterfully written, make the argument that the word "people" in the Second Amendment is to be interpreted like the word "people" has been in all similar cases concerning other Amendments. That is people means everyone as an individual. In effect, I'm a people; you are a people as in "All the people in the room got a piece of cake". This is in opposition to the rather spurious assertion that "people" means the collective group as in "All the people in the room listened to the speaker."

    If all the previous rulings about the other Amendments that rights granted to "the people" refer to individual rights, then it follows that the drafters of the Constitution meant individual rights in the Second Amendment as well.

    Further, the Constitution and English Common Law from which a great deal of it is derived, does not grant "Rights" to governments. Governments are always granted "Powers". Rights are granted to people. That is why it's called the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the Second Amendment states "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." If the drafters had wanted to grant power to the states it could have easily been written, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the states may grant their people the right to keep and bear arms." Of course, that type of statement would not have made any sense in a document called the Bill of Rights.

    It is the anti-gunners that are sweating this one.
     
  16. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    yes, I read what Gene said. By way of response, I will say that court of any kind is a crapshoot. We allow abortions (killing kids) based on a right to privacy. figure that one out - I can't.

    Here is what is being appealed - A U.S. federal Appeals Court on Friday overturned Washington, D.C.'s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city's argument that the legal right to bear arms applies only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrolment in a militia.

    I believe that Gene needs to understand the NRA (meaning me and those like me) did not appeal to the Supreme Court. The losers did. To say DC gun owners should not challenge because it could hurt others is (to me) silly. We should always challenge those who infringe on our rights.

    We all want the same thing - that is the continued freedom we currently enjoy. We do not have to agree on how to get there or how to stay there. That too is a very good thing.
     
  17. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Well, in the case of Washington, D.C. (and several other cities), the "rights we currently enjoy" don't amount to much, if you're a person living there and can't have a handgun. So the status quo position of continuing to enjoy the rights you already enjoy, doesn't amount to much for those people.



    If you lose this case, you don't simply revert back to the rights you already enjoy...you just gave the green light to every city in America to follow suit and enact their own ban. And even if you win, what do you win? A thinly-worded admonition that "total bans" are not constitutional...while leaving the door wide open to, say, registration?



    Hey, look...believe me, I savor nothing more than the prospect of a decisive pro-2A decision...followed by Hillary's future Supreme Court appointments being grilled by Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee asking them, "So, Mr. Commie...do you believe in the concept of Stare Decisis, or don't you?" That would be delicious.


    But there is a potential down-side to this one. And even if we win, lawyers can take a potato chip and slice it 8 ways. Depending on how the decision is written, what "we" would think of as a favorable decision that strikes down a complete ban, comes off to the rest of liberal society as an affirmation that if the law had only been written in a slightly less draconian manner than a complete ban...it would have been ok.


    Mark my words - both sides will be on the court steps claiming victory after the decision is read. And we know what that means.
     
  18. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    Gary here is what it sounds like to me?

    Wayne is the type of guy that wields power and everyone in a room is afraid to say no.

    There have been others that history has not treated well with his type of convincing personality.

    On an issue such as supporting the original suit, I can see a lot of head nodding going on as opposed to thinking about the implications of the battle one is choosing.

    I dont know if the NRA supported the original suit directly or not--but there are plenty of indirect ways as well.

    I have considered Wayne a negative in recent years for many reasons and see if not his handprint on this, certainly his lack of effective leadership on tactical issues.

    I remember well a fund drive after 9-11 that the NRA had with a recording of Wayne- that lawmakers would use this as a tool to take our guns away. At a time when the nation should have been united, Wayne was trying to drive a wedge between americans.

    If this was an NRA sposored action, then yes they picked the wrong battle.

    Finally - DC is not a state- it doesnt have the powers that the founders granted states- a win in DC is a very small win and would only confirm some individual right - that by assumption has existed for over 200 years anyway

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  19. Sgt. Mike

    Sgt. Mike TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    301
    Darr,

    During the gun debates is the first time I have heard the National Guard referred to as a "militia". Some states have laws against a private "militia".

    I don't believe the U.S. Constitution spells out exactly what a "militia" was. With that being said we need to go back to the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and see what a "militia" was. Probably both government and citizen groups were involved. You asked a great question. I hope more will answer from a historical background perspective. Have a great Thanksgiving. Sgt. Mike
     
  20. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Darr,

    "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

    This is the "militia" to which the Amendment refers. It is not the National Guard. That concept is anti-gun, liberal BS.

    Now, obviously an unarmed militia is of little use. So, in context of a militia, it was ecxpected that the individuals,("all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age"), would maintain their own arms. This concept flows down from early English law that required able bodied men to practice archery in case they need to be called to fight.

    The anti-gunners have been weasling on the Second Amendment for a long time. Their position is not supported by facts, other writings by the authors of the Constitution or precedent. It is time they got their whupping.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.