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

[MontyB]

Technically the definition of a militia is every armed man 18-45.

The only problem today is there are _way_ too many people. Makes crimes of passion more likely.

True but are they not also organised and controlled by their home state?

According to legal lexicons:

MILITIA - The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.

The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress.Under the clauses of the constitution, the following points have been decided.

If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service ot the United States, as being, from the time of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have not so considered him, in the acts of congress, till after his appearance at the place of rendezvous; previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine was deemed an equivalent for his services, and an atonement for disobedience.

The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of congress, constitutionally made.

 

[03USMC]

For the record I am a "controlled" supporter although I could be a "restricted" candidate depending how they are defined and I don't see why the 1st, 4th or 8th Amendments would need changing unless they are no longer applicable.

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

 

[The Other Guy]

There have been amendments repealed. It can be done. Should it be in this case. I don't really think so. But can it be done? yes.

 

[MontyB]

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

Sentimentally I agree with you completely it would be great if we could just regulate ourselves however practically that will never happen.

The "slippery slope" argument is often used in these discussions the problem is that if we were to enact it we would still be living in caves clubbing each other as it would be impossible to organise the activities of anything.

 

[mmarsh]

My point was this. Whem you allow your rights as a citizen to be curtailed amd infringed upon by your goverment in any small way, then you put other rights in jeopardy as well.

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

Most European countries ban private ownership of handguns, France did so in 1996 did society fall because of it...no. We in America abolished the right to own slaves, that too had no effect on the rest of our democracy, in fact it enhanced it.

Neither MontyB nor I favor banning firearms, but I do believe in 'reasonable restrictions', just as there are rules for owning a car, a house, a boat, etc. People like to hide behind the 2nd Amendment, but even Justice Scalia said that the 2nd amendment might be outmoded. The 2nd Amendment talks about Militias as a primary means of defense (the standing army in 1789 was tiny), but we dont have Militias anymore. We have a $240 Billion Standing Army and a Volenteer National Guard. Its time to accept the fact that what goes in 1789 doesnt necessary fit in 2008.

Major

1. Living in a country is not the same as visiting or even talking on the internet. Personally I find internet people to be rude in general, regardless of nationality. So you really cannot make such a blanket statement based solely on an impression.

2. I only quoted what you wrote, you said "as I value the opinions and feelings of a cockroach over theirs." Meaning: You have more respect for a roach. Not exactly the nicest thing to say to someone who merely disagrees.

3. That doesnt matter, you dont live there now. I have never met anybody living outside the city with a special fondness for city folk. And that goes for people living outside city limits.

 

[A Can of Man]

I lived in Europe for a while... you have a mix of pleasant and not so pleasant people. But there seems to be a surplus of not so pleasant people for some reason. Dude is packing a Porsche and looks like he's going to jump off a bridge at the same time.

As for firearm ownership... I did agree on some level of licensing until the whole New Orleans firearm seizing deal. It's always at times like these you wonder if you're allowed to protect yourself from stupid LEOs.

 

[Del Boy]

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

2nd amendment might be outmoded. . Its time to accept the fact that what goes in 1789 doesnt necessary fit in 2008.

Why persevere with the constitiution then? Want a new constitution? How would you change 2nd Amendment when such matters are supposed to be above the reach of the lawmakers? By referendum?
Would this attitude not put the whole question of the constitution at risk?

 

[mmarsh]

Why persevere with the constitiution then? Want a new constitution? How would you change 2nd Amendment when such matters are supposed to be above the reach of the lawmakers? By referendum?
Would this attitude not put the whole question of the constitution at risk?

The Founding Fathers were visionaires, they knew as time changed society would too. Thats why they added features that allowed that the Constitution be modified. They didn't make it any easy process to avoid abuse. To make a change it has to be ratified by both houses and 2/3 of the states. The last successful change was in 1992.

We have done so many times in the past, we gave women the right to vote, we abolished slavery, allowed for the direction election of senators, etc. All of the above were not in the original document. In our entire 250 year history we have made 17 changes, and we are still here. So no, I dont think it would have any monumental effect.

I am not advocating a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, just a modification to allow some level of control. Just as the government can control cars, and communications and just about everything else.

Why is it that the government IS allowed to control automobiles and TeleCommunications and not firearms? If the federal government chose to restrict travel or communications the damage would be far more devestating than a restriction on firearms. In fact it would probably paralyze the entire country with moments.

 

[A Can of Man]

Mmarsh makes some pretty good points here.
What's a little firepower if you're stripped of communications and mobility?

 

[03USMC]

A tiny risk yes, but most of the time a small curtail has no effect.

Most European countries ban private ownership of handguns, France did so in 1996 did society fall because of it...no. We in America abolished the right to own slaves, that too had no effect on the rest of our democracy, in fact it enhanced it.

And most european countries display a pronounced socialist bent as of late.

Slavery vs firearms is apples and oranges.

 

[Missileer]

Spartacus or William Wallace stopped being slaves when they armed themselves. Even though they gave their lives for it, they inspired a world of slaves to become free men. It was a choice of dying in slavery or freedom, they chose the latter. No one remembers a coward.

 

[MontyB]

They also killed thousands and died horribly, I am not sure I see the correlation.

 

[mmarsh]

And most european countries display a pronounced socialist bent as of late.

Slavery vs firearms is apples and oranges.

What does that have to do with anything? Socialism is a economic system not a political one. They are all democracies, and in fact, many of those countries enjoy a greater degree of civil liberty than we do.

Missileer

As MontyB said, not exactly the best examples you want to use, despite the aire of nobility in their cause they were both savages.
The real characters were not the romantic characters Charlton Heston and Mel Gibson played. Ghangis Khan was more gentle, as he at least gave his enemies a chance to surrender. Spartacus massacred every Roman he got his hands on civilian and military alike, and Wallace was so brutal after Falkirk he made a belt out of human skin from the English Commander.

 

[5.56X45mm]

If ever we needed proof that Gummint never relinquishes power unless compelled to do so:

The District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday that will allow residents to begin applying for handgun permits this week.

The council’s unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.
​

Errrr didn’t Scalia’s opinion deride just this as “unreasonable”?

Looks like it’s back to the lawyers.

Perhaps if a D.C. resident were to get hurt during a robbery, and it’s proved that the unreadiness of the gun was a contributing factor…

Why don't we place the same restrictions on DC Police? They can have firearms for home defense.

 

[AikiRooster]

Or require them to carry them disassembled and of course, no magazines are allowed to be loaded on stand by either. In fact, the left has requested all trigger fingers be removed.

 

[A Can of Man]

The real characters were not the romantic characters Charlton Heston and Mel Gibson played. Ghangis Khan was more gentle, as he at least gave his enemies a chance to surrender. Spartacus massacred every Roman he got his hands on civilian and military alike, and Wallace was so brutal after Falkirk he made a belt out of human skin from the English Commander.

Yep, but since Genghis Kahn was Mongolian...

 

[AikiRooster]

Gun Owners of America Denounces "Lawless" DC City Council

The Executive Director of Gun Owners of America denounced yesterday's action
of the D.C. City Council in response to the Supreme Court's Heller ruling
and predicted that its "emergency legislation" would be challenged and
overturned.GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt characterized the council's action by
saying: "It is no wonder that the District is awash with lawlessness. The
contempt for the law starts in the city council chambers."

The District's emergency action would keep the unconstitutional gun license
requirement; keep the unconstitutional semiautomatic ban; and impose new
unconstitutional ballistics, testing and fingerprint requirements on those
wishing to exercise their right to keep a firearm for self-defense.

But, even more flagrantly, the District would maintain the trigger lock and
unloaded gun requirements which were explicitly overturned by the High
Court.

"The District appears to be dutifully passing what the Brady folks drafted
for it," said Pratt. "But while interim D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles
fancies that they have crafted 'model' legislation, it is in fact a model
for litigative defeat and more court-administered humiliation."

Pratt predicted that the council's action would be challenged and
overturned. And he also called on Congress to exercise its constitutional
responsibility under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, to rein in the lawless
D.C. government.

"The District needs to be reined in for its lawless actions," Pratt said.
"It's about time that Congress takes its responsibility to do so seriously."

-GOA-