US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST - Page 2




 
--
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
 
June 28th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
And how is that any different from the monarchies of Europe in the 1780s?
Because now they can actually get it and there will be no where to hide.
June 28th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
So from what I've gathered, there is absolutely no way to overthrow an opressive government in some countries, because their government is simply too strong. For example the United States. If some pro-military dictator somehow managed to manipulate the system (I don't see any way of this happening, but just for laughs and giggles) and took total control of the country, the only way to overthrow him would be to get the US Military to turn on him.
June 28th, 2008  
major liability
 
 
Or take the Iranian path and develop nukes so if he wants to mess with you his army is vaporized and irradiated.
--
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
June 28th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 
I believe that we must take the fact that the ruling of it being it Individual Right being a win is correct. But everything else is not. We won a small victory but at what cost? Did we just commit all of our reserves into the fight against an overwhelming force? Can we push through the front and hit our enemy’s rear and cause the blow that we so need to secure our rights?

This is a war... plain and simple. Just as we are fighting for our very right to live against Islamofacists. We are fighting for our very rights to be free from an unjust despotic government bent on tyranny. Our nation is slowing falling into the void of such tyranny. Further and further we slip into the cold grip of evil.

This ruling is one such move towards it. Yes, it says that our rights are individual. But it also clearly states that the Government as the absolute power to regulate it in any which way that they wish.

They can simply go and create a permitting system in which you and I, the common citizen cannot in anyway qualify for it. Fees, Taxes, Approvals, Reviews, Requirements, etc.....

Basically they can make it out of the reach of the common man. This ruling states that the Sullivan Act of NYC is legal. What’s the Sullivan Act?

The Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue the permit to own a pistol. Basically if you’re not someone of power or wealth or someway have a connection with the police. They can turn you down at their pleasing. It’s the same as a bank turning you down for a loan because they don’t like the shirt you’re wearing.

They can do this on a national level now if they please too.

If we do not stand up and continue the fight we will surely lose. As I said.... the fact that the Federal Government has just ruled that it is a Individual Right is a major win. But the ruling was not needed in my humble opinion. It’s clear and simple as needed. Sadly the ruling basically also gave the government a complete free hand on infringing on said right. The ruling worded it as if the Government was kind enough to grant us the privilege to own firearms.

Dark times are ahead my friends..... We must stay strong and keep a constant vigilant watch on what our government does. For if we do not... all is lost.
June 28th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
I have always been under the impression that your Constitution was meant explicitly to protect you from the law on such fundamental issues - different governments cam impose different laws, for example.

A question often asked about the Nazi regime is, 'Why did the Jews never defend themselves'? Well, the government had carefully relieved them by law of all weapons, down to and including kitchen knives.

Governments tend these days to take unto themselves as much power as they can and use it wherever their whim takes them; USA has probably been an exception so far; here we now have 100s of organisations who can insist upon invading our homes, in some cases there is a $10,000 fine for refusing access to these jobsworths.

An Englishman's home is certainly no longer his castle.
June 28th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 
This is what the enemies of the 2nd Amendment are Saying. "Thank you, Scalia, for the unexpected, unnecessary, but much appreciated engraved invitation to regulate the s**t out of this "individual right."

Selections from this morning's news:

"In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said.


San Francisco bars people from carrying handguns on county property, including in parks, schools and community centers. Newsom said city attorneys have been researching new regulations that might place tighter controls on ammunition and further restrict where guns could be carried.


District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said. (Gosh, now that the ban has been overturned, I wonder what the reasonable requirements will be for registration.)


The high court said nothing in its ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." (That quote is in every news story.)


Some states, like New Jersey and Massachusetts, weren't so concerned about the decision, believing the court had expressed its distaste for D.C.'s flat-out ban but left room for some firearms regulation. "We regulate the possession of handguns - we don't ban handguns," said New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram. "But we have strict licensing requirements, and we are prepared to maintain those requirements and vigorously enforce our laws." New Jersey requires purchasers of any firearm to obtain a permit before purchase. Federal law only requires purchasers have a background check at the time of purchase.


In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said "fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans." He said local authorities "have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations."

"Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby's strength is based on stoking the public's slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they'll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition." Cato Institute

Bend over and prepare to be reasonably regulated.
June 29th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Then you have the freaks like Rosie O'Donut who are extremely anti-gun, but they want their bodyguards to be armed.
July 1st, 2008  
major liability
 
 
At least I already live in New York - nothing new for me, just the same old total lack of respect for the citizen from our officials. Sometimes I think the legislation in this state is geared solely around the needs of NYC residents. NYC is only half the state and it's in a tiny little area. I wish it'd break off like Hong Kong so it could pass all the European laws it wanted without bothering anyone else in NY.
July 1st, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by major liability
At least I already live in New York - nothing new for me, just the same old total lack of respect for the citizen from our officials. Sometimes I think the legislation in this state is geared solely around the needs of NYC residents. NYC is only half the state and it's in a tiny little area. I wish it'd break off like Hong Kong so it could pass all the European laws it wanted without bothering anyone else in NY.
Thats because NYC is almost 1/2 of the entire state population, so obviously they have a large say in state affairs. But I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

The NRA loves to say let people who want to have guns have them. But it refuses to agree with the opposite statement, let those communities who DON'T want to have guns in their communities have the the right to ban them.

Its the people who elect the politicians who pass such laws. I think the voters of DC, NYC, and elsewhere were very clear: they don't want guns within city limits. There is no great popular demand to allow handguns by NYC residents, if there was handguns would be legal.

But groups like the NRA who are not even residents and how have no idea of the added stresses in living in a metropolis of 8 Million People insist on shoving guns down everybodies throat, whether they want them or not.

Let the voters on both sides of the issue make the decision in their areas, not some paranoid DC special interest group.
July 1st, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Well, how about if New York decided they didn't want you participating on forums, so you wouldn't since they said you shouldn't?
 


Similar Topics
Iraq Detention Case Heads To High Court
Col. Oliver North: Washington, D.C. 2nd Amendment case to be heard
For Justices, Another Day On Detainees
D.C. Circuit Court Hands Down Victory for Individual 2nd Amendment Rights!
Who Should Bush nominate for Supreme Court?