US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I bet your heart is in your throat right now.
mmarsh
Active member
Ban was overturned, as I thought it would be. Its a 5-4 ruling with all conservative judges voting against and the libs-moderates for. Which means its not over as the case will certainly be brought up again in the near future the moment that a new Justice is seated, who will probably replace Conservative Kennedy (as he close to 90).
Scalia did say that the ruling only applies to homes and is not a universal right, things like CC can still be banned for example. He also said that the 2nd Amendment itself may be outmoded due to the fact thats it was based on 1789 society and not 2008.
Scalia did say that the ruling only applies to homes and is not a universal right, things like CC can still be banned for example. He also said that the 2nd Amendment itself may be outmoded due to the fact thats it was based on 1789 society and not 2008.
Last edited:
Marinerhodes
Active member
This is the first time since 1791 that the 2nd amendment has been conclusively interpreted. I don't disagree with not owning assault weapons and weapons modified. Afterall who really needs fully automatic weapons? Even the US military no longer uses fully automatic assault rifles for general use. But to categorically deny an individual the right to bear arms is wrong.
As for a new justice standing in..somehow I don't doubt it. At the same time it depends on who is in office to do the appointing right?
As for a new justice standing in..somehow I don't doubt it. At the same time it depends on who is in office to do the appointing right?
The Other Guy
Spam King
Well put. I see no problem with letting people have handguns, but you don't need an M-60.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
I had already expressed my disappointment that a miserable 5 of 9 think our Bill of Rights is valid. It should have been unanimous. Also, the language I'd already seen makes it sound like the Supereme Court has GIVEN us a right, rather than simply confirming that a God Given Right was guaranteed clearly and obviously, in the 2nd Amendment. I was also concerned about language that seemed to qualify the right rather than simply confirm it.
Steve Bonta (PhD and brilliant schollar and journalist) has made a quick study of this decision and the facts are worse than I'd feared. Don't celebrate yet...
Here's what he (Dr. Bonta) has to say:
"I'm sure you've heard about the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling today on the Second Amendment. LewRockwell.com, etc., are in full celebration mode, for example. However, the majority decision (much of which I've already read) effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out, but you heard it here first. First of all, the decision makes explicit (pp. 54-55, and also in the intro) that the Supremes do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as in violation of the Second Amendment; nor do they oppose "laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Furthermore, after arguing earlier in the decision that the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Alito et al say this (p. 56): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [the case under discussion] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like --may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the eighteenth century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.... but the fact that modern development have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Translation: you still can't own the good stuff, only now, laws banning or severely limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision.
A couple of other thoughts: Early in the document, the majority correctly note that the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one. Yet only a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment that informs the rest of the decision, they affirm that the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. And while we're at it, a second very imnportant semantic point whihc sixty pages of quodlibetical argumentation ignores entirely: the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in point of fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe." Infringement, of course, means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Supremes see the DC handgun ban as a clear violation, but have no problem with myriads of other infringements on the right, as the document makes explicit.
Scott, you may recall that I predicted this outcome several months back. In the short run, gun owners will rejoice, until it dawns on everybody what this decision really means. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its pristinity but the "right" of government to infringe on the 2nd Amendment pretty much at its pleasure, as long as it does not resort to blanket firearms bans and outright confiscation of entire classes of weapons that haven't been banned already. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capaity shotguns, RPGs and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rathers than weakens such laws.
Steve Bonta (PhD and brilliant schollar and journalist) has made a quick study of this decision and the facts are worse than I'd feared. Don't celebrate yet...
Here's what he (Dr. Bonta) has to say:
"I'm sure you've heard about the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling today on the Second Amendment. LewRockwell.com, etc., are in full celebration mode, for example. However, the majority decision (much of which I've already read) effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out, but you heard it here first. First of all, the decision makes explicit (pp. 54-55, and also in the intro) that the Supremes do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as in violation of the Second Amendment; nor do they oppose "laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Furthermore, after arguing earlier in the decision that the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Alito et al say this (p. 56): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [the case under discussion] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like --may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the eighteenth century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.... but the fact that modern development have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Translation: you still can't own the good stuff, only now, laws banning or severely limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision.
A couple of other thoughts: Early in the document, the majority correctly note that the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one. Yet only a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment that informs the rest of the decision, they affirm that the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. And while we're at it, a second very imnportant semantic point whihc sixty pages of quodlibetical argumentation ignores entirely: the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in point of fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe." Infringement, of course, means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Supremes see the DC handgun ban as a clear violation, but have no problem with myriads of other infringements on the right, as the document makes explicit.
Scott, you may recall that I predicted this outcome several months back. In the short run, gun owners will rejoice, until it dawns on everybody what this decision really means. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its pristinity but the "right" of government to infringe on the 2nd Amendment pretty much at its pleasure, as long as it does not resort to blanket firearms bans and outright confiscation of entire classes of weapons that haven't been banned already. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capaity shotguns, RPGs and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rathers than weakens such laws.
major liability
Active member
Good news in the short term, but the fact that it's gotten this bad in the first place is a sure sign of how badly our rights have been eroded by politicians over the years.
Scalia thinks it only applies to homeowners?
Edit: What's so different about 2008? There are still criminals and people with ill-will in general, though certainly not as many as the media makes it seem. There are still wild animals in some places. I thought that it was supposed to be the duty and right of the people to fight any government that becomes tyrannical and disregards the Constitution. That was probably the main reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Scalia thinks it only applies to homeowners?
Edit: What's so different about 2008? There are still criminals and people with ill-will in general, though certainly not as many as the media makes it seem. There are still wild animals in some places. I thought that it was supposed to be the duty and right of the people to fight any government that becomes tyrannical and disregards the Constitution. That was probably the main reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
It was but you know... times have changed. The government wants total control.
The Other Guy
Spam King
And how is that any different from the monarchies of Europe in the 1780s?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think his point is more about the level of firepower that can be purchased today vs that of 1780's. The idea that a 230 year old document is relevant today in anything more than spirit is perhaps what needs to be determined.
Lets face it 100+ years ago "motor vehicles" used to require someone walking ahead of them with a flag to notify on coming traffic of there presence I am sure most people see that while the spirit of the law was right it could no longer be applied to today's motor vehicles.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Because now they can actually get it and there will be no where to hide.
The Other Guy
Spam King
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.
major liability
Active member
Or take the Iranian path and develop nukes so if he wants to mess with you his army is vaporized and irradiated.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
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.
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.
Last edited:
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
Then you have the freaks like Rosie O'Donut who are extremely anti-gun, but they want their bodyguards to be armed.
major liability
Active member
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.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
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.
AikiRooster
Tube Monkey USMC
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?