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

US Supreme Court to rule on 2nd Amendment!

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

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

    Porcupine Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    South Central Massachusetts
    Here we go, amigos! This is our best chance. If we win this one, then ALL our Constitutional rights will be strengthened!

    Porcupine
     
  2. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    And if we lose?
     
  3. maltzahn

    maltzahn Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Creston, IA
    Home | Contact Us | About NSSF | All NSSF-Supported Sites | Search
    Safety &
    Education Hunting Shooting Media
    Resources Member Services
    & Industry Legal &
    Legislative

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Printable Version




    TO: ALL MEDIA
    For immediate release
    November 20, 2007

    For more information contact:
    Ted Novin
    tnovin@nssf.org
    Office: (203) 426-1320
    Cell: (202) 253-1860


    Firearms Industry Applauds Supreme Court
    Decision to Hear Second Amendment Case
    NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association of the firearms industry -- applauded the decision by the United States Supreme Court to determine authoritatively whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    The U.S. Supreme Court granted a review of a decision from March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041) -- a case that upheld the striking down of the District's ban on private ownership of handguns while asserting that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case is now known as District of Columbia v. Heller. The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.

    "The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.

    "The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, than the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."

    While the Heller case will be the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Miller), the nation's leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts are on record as having concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right. Such renowned scholars as Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas have been vocal in their assertion that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    "The government has powers, not rights," added Keane. "The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit."

    BACKGROUND:
    In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District's gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that "The phrase 'the right of the people' . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." This was the second time in recent history that a federal circuit court upheld the longstanding belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."

    ###



    Press Releases

    Now Available via
    RSS | Email


    Streaming Video












    Legislative Action Center


    Events Calendar



    Download a
    Media Kit


    Read Issues Online


    Hire A Hero



    Industry Job Opportunities


    © 2007 National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    11 Mile Hill Road • Newtown, CT 06470 • 203.426.1320
     
  4. cdconley

    cdconley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    643
    I guess we can be thankful to GWB for his two appointees. Most of the decisions that are made by the US Supreme Court come down to a 5 to 4 ruling with all 4 conservatives, Roberts, Scalia Thomas and Alito on one side and the four liberals on the other side with Kennedy being the swing and deciding vote. Just think had Gore or Kerry been in office for those appointment we would have two more Ginsburg type justices. And just incase you don’t know what that means, you can bet your last dollar that before this case is adjudicated, Ruth Ginsburg will vote against our perceived second amendment rights. Anybody want part of that bet? Had Gore been elected in 2000 this case would go against gun owners by at least 6-3 with Thomas and Scalia being the only dissenters to the majority opinion.

    With the help of Bush the decision will be (no guessing needed here)

    Supporting our right to own guns;
    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito

    Taking our rights to own guns;
    Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens

    The swing vote on the fence will be Kennedy.

    If Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of GWB.

    Supporting our rights to own guns;
    Scalia and Thomas

    Taking our rights to own gun;
    Ginsburg 1, Ginsburg 2 (appointed by pres gore), Ginsburg 3, Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Kennedy.

    Gee, if Gore would have been elected in 2000 I think a good idea would have been to buy stock in the company that make the Dry Fire System because that’s the only trap shooting we would be doing.
     
  5. GunDr

    GunDr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,913
    I hope I don't end up bussing tables at Micky D's.

    Doug
     
  6. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,416
    Why is it so great that they are reviewing a case that was already decided in our favor? We already won, now we can win or we can lose. HMB
     
  7. Shootrman

    Shootrman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    766
    Harrisburg Pa. legislation just shot down tougher gun laws and Gov. Rendell and all those Philly hooplahs are crying.....Duh! Why not enforce the laws they already have. Tougher laws are gonna stop criminals from getting guns..PERIOD
     
  8. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,416
    Get rid of the criminals, not the guns. HMB
     
  9. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    the way it was written, it would have only applied in DC.
     
  10. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    To cut and paraphrase...much ado about nothing, probably.

    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.
     
  11. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    India, you may want to go read up on horizontal and vertical "Precedent".
     
  12. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    This suit is ill advised

    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
     
  13. alf174

    alf174 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    499
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Be careful what you wish for; it could backfire.
     
  14. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Many gun owners, being god-fearing traditionalists, tend to think that something written on a stone tablet / dusty old scroll is the "law for all time," and if they can just get everybody to "admit" it, they have won all the marbles.


    But it doesn't work that way.


    In today's "pluralistic" society, a musty old piece of paper means nothing...except what the lawyers say it does. The interpretation battle never ends. It's not supposed to.


    The only rights you have are the ones you can defend, and re-defend, and re-defend again...at the ballot box and in the Legislature.
     
  15. 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
    Enforce the laws on the books now? Even the blatantly anti-gun ones? No thanks.
     
  16. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    So what kind of attorney are you india?
     
  17. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Just a reminder that the next President will be appointing 2, if not more, Supreme Court justices. Remember this when you vote next November. This is not the only issue that will be brought that can affect us. Just think of the revenue that a large shooting establishment can have on the tax roles if it was a shopping center or such.
     
  18. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    For those of you wishing an intelligent review of the case, please follow the link above. It is an article written by a co-counsel for the Plaintiffs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.