District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290

[quade 4]

Quote

You don't have an EXPLICITLY STATED Constitutional right to own a car.

Just in case you didn't notice, that IS what the case is entirely about; whether or not the US Constitution is talking about a personal right or the right of a militia.

If you -thought- that had been ever actually been definitively decided, then you're wildly mistaken no matter who's opinion you've ever read on the subject to the contrary.

THAT is why this case will be "interesting".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't have an EXPLICITLY STATED Constitutional right to own a car.

Just in case you didn't notice, that IS what the case is entirely about; whether or not the US Constitution is talking about a personal right or the right of a militia.

If you -thought- that had been ever actually been definitively decided, then you're wildly mistaken no matter who's opinion you've ever read on the subject to the contrary.

THAT is why this case will be "interesting".

I know it's not been definitively decided - being a gun owner myself, I tend to pay a *bit* more attention to the topic than Joe Sixpack. However, reading of the Federalist Papers and deconstruction of the Amendment by language experts *does*, in fact, show that the right was meant to be a personal one.

I still shake my head in wonderment at people who can say that the "people" in ALL the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individuals, but the "people" in the 2nd are a state militia.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,595]

Interesting, so people here are willing to shoot cops in order to defend at least one element of the constitution.

Now, would you support a terror suspect who shot a policeman who was attempting to arrest and detain him without charge?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Where I see this going, worst case, is that guns will be treated just like every other device that requires licensing; cars, airplanes, ham radios . . .

Interesting. Do you think we should go to the government and register whatever religion (or lack of) each person practices?

How about having to purchase a license to speak your mind, or assemble?

anything else you want to register or license from the Bill of Rights?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Interesting, so people here are willing to shoot cops in order to defend at least one element of the constitution.

Now, would you support a terror suspect who shot a policeman who was attempting to arrest and detain him without charge?

How does he know that in advance?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

How does he know that in advance?

Same way the previous posters knew the cop was there for their guns.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How does he know that in advance?

Same way the previous posters knew the cop was there for their guns.

If the cop is coming for the gun, but not to arrest, he has to say so at some point. But you won't know until after arrest that you're not being charged.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Would you be prepared to shoot a policeman who tried to confiscate your weapons?

The rank and file policemen are, by a large majority, in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Most would refuse to carry out such orders.

Of those that remain that would be willing, it wouldn't take too many instances of confiscation resistance shootings, before the number of policemen willing to serve that duty would dry up.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

The rank and file policemen are, by a large majority, in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Most would refuse to carry out such orders.

After seeing what happened in the wake of Katrina, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the cops to do the right thing the next time.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't have an EXPLICITLY STATED Constitutional right to own a car.

Just in case you didn't notice, that IS what the case is entirely about; whether or not the US Constitution is talking about a personal right or the right of a militia.

If you -thought- that had been ever actually been definitively decided, then you're wildly mistaken no matter who's opinion you've ever read on the subject to the contrary.

THAT is why this case will be "interesting".

I know it's not been definitively decided - being a gun owner myself, I tend to pay a *bit* more attention to the topic than Joe Sixpack. However, reading of the Federalist Papers and deconstruction of the Amendment by language experts *does*, in fact, show that the right was meant to be a personal one.

I still shake my head in wonderment at people who can say that the "people" in ALL the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individuals, but the "people" in the 2nd are a state militia.

Hey there bud. You could call me Joe Sixpack (although I drink a good bourbon as much as possible) and I own guns and alot of my friends are Joe Sixpacks and they own guns. I read alot and I follow this shit and I vote. Stereotyping again? Joe Sixpacks will be the ones fighting if this shit comes to pass.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Would you be prepared to shoot a policeman who tried to confiscate your weapons?

The rank and file policemen are, by a large majority, in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Most would refuse to carry out such orders.

Of those that remain that would be willing, it wouldn't take too many instances of confiscation resistance shootings, before the number of policemen willing to serve that duty would dry up.

I'll agree w/ that. Had a domestic dispute w/ my daughter (over her drug use) and called the cops to make her leave my house. She's 29. She tried everything in the world to get me in trouble. (as she's done before) She said "he has guns in there" and the cop said "I don't care LEAVE". I do live in a nice neighborhood so I don't know if that made a difference.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't have an EXPLICITLY STATED Constitutional right to own a car.

Just in case you didn't notice, that IS what the case is entirely about; whether or not the US Constitution is talking about a personal right or the right of a militia.

If you -thought- that had been ever actually been definitively decided, then you're wildly mistaken no matter who's opinion you've ever read on the subject to the contrary.

THAT is why this case will be "interesting".

I know it's not been definitively decided - being a gun owner myself, I tend to pay a *bit* more attention to the topic than Joe Sixpack. However, reading of the Federalist Papers and deconstruction of the Amendment by language experts *does*, in fact, show that the right was meant to be a personal one.

I still shake my head in wonderment at people who can say that the "people" in ALL the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individuals, but the "people" in the 2nd are a state militia.

Hey there bud. You could call me Joe Sixpack (although I drink a good bourbon as much as possible) and I own guns and alot of my friends are Joe Sixpacks and they own guns. I read alot and I follow this shit and I vote. Stereotyping again? Joe Sixpacks will be the ones fighting if this shit comes to pass.

Yup, I'm stereotyping... I'm a Joe Sixpack too, on some issues. You have to admit, though - the average person on the street could care less about this issue, if they're not already firmly in the anti's camp.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Sorry I missed the thread it was unintentional as the news article I cited was released today at 1pm

Quote

The Supreme Court agrees to rule on gun case

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 1:02 pm After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I emphasized in BOLD type what they actually had said.

[quade 4]

Quote

Sorry I missed the thread it was unintentional as the news article I cited was released today at 1pm

Hmmm, where ya gettin' your news? I heard about it at least a week ago. That's why I made this thread. I was kinda thinkin' the "usual suspects" would be all over this. The very first link in this thread should keep y'all up to date as it progresses.

No bias, just facts recorded.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rookie120 0]

I think most no my views on this but it doesn't mean squat. I will just wait to see what the supreme court has to say and then see what D.C. reaction is to the decision.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Sorry I missed the thread it was unintentional as the news article I cited was released today at 1pm

Hmmm, where ya gettin' your news? I heard about it at least a week ago.

A week ago it wasn't clear if they would take the case or not. Today they said yes. That is the news, along with the words they used in taking it.

By your logic, we should find a thread from a year ago and insert comments there.

[1969912 0]

I wonder how DC's non-state status will play into this. If the supremes rule that the DC codes violate the 2nd, could their decision somehow apply only to DC?

Also, will their ruling only apply to outright prohibition of firearms, leaving the government free to apply onerous and nonsensical regulations on firearm owners?

Any ideas?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I wonder how DC's non-state status will play into this. If the supremes rule that the DC codes violate the 2nd, could their decision somehow apply only to DC?

My understanding is that DC is trying that tack, but the fact that other laws applicable to the other states are also enforced in DC (working from memory, here, I don't recall where I saw the info) will probably trump that line of defense.

Quote

Also, will their ruling only apply to outright prohibition of firearms, leaving the government free to apply onerous and nonsensical regulations on firearm owners?

Any ideas?

That, I'm afraid, is going to depend on the ruling of the court.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

In Reply To
Also, will their ruling only apply to outright prohibition of firearms, leaving the government free to apply onerous and nonsensical regulations on firearm owners?

Any ideas?

That, I'm afraid, is going to depend on the ruling of the court.

I read a little more about it:

Heller's petition asked the court "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.", which seems to apply to the entire country.

DC's petition asked "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.", which implies applicability to DC only.


The Supremes chose to answer neither question, and as posted earlier, will answer the question(s) below:

"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes"

Not sure about nationwide applicability, but it looks better than the question posed by DC.

This is interesting: The court implies that they partially understand the 2nd as intended by it's authors, but have some strange ideas about some parts of it ("bear" is missing and they seem to believe it applies only keeping arms in your house). See bolded part of the question above. At least they seem to understand what was meant by "militia". In US v. Miller, while it was clear the court understood the intent of the 2nd, they didn't explicitly rule on the people/militia question. I don't think this case will settle the issue either, but that might be a good thing considering the missing "bear" and the "in their homes" crap. What do you think?

I haven't read the DC satutes, but my guess is that a favorable ruling by the court won't prevent the government from enacting registration laws, etc.

Unless one of the statutes contains restrictions on "Semiauto rifles that look a certain way", then their ruling won't help in California and other states.

If the Supremes rule favorably, then in DC criminals won't be the only people with handguns.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes"

I'm keeping my fingers crossed - a tightly constrained ruling on strictly that question could, if I understand it correctly, overrule the 'disarmed by local fiat' currently present in NYC, DC and Chicago, among other places - at least in the home.

What has HCI and the rest of the Brady bunch worried is the precedent it could set for overturning OTHER bad gun law - much as gun owners worry about the situation from the reverse viewpoint.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

They try to take everyones guns and they'd better bring all the soldiers back me thinks.

I think it's a pretty big leap from A to B there and what is to me the most distrubing thing about it is that, to me, it seems like most people can't see the distinction between the two.

For instance, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention anything about me owning a car, yet, I certainly have one.

Where I see this going, worst case, is that guns will be treated just like every other device that requires licensing; cars, airplanes, ham radios . . .

They're going to have to change the Second Amendment then. The Constitution does not say anything about the "government granting the rights and privileges herein".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wonder how DC's non-state status will play into this. If the supremes rule that the DC codes violate the 2nd, could their decision somehow apply only to DC?

Also, will their ruling only apply to outright prohibition of firearms, leaving the government free to apply onerous and nonsensical regulations on firearm owners?

Any ideas?

The phrasing the Court used seems to give them the latitude to make as wide or narrow a ruling as they wish. without committing to it now.

It's probably one time it's good to have a Bush stacked Court.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how DC's non-state status will play into this. If the supremes rule that the DC codes violate the 2nd, could their decision somehow apply only to DC?

Also, will their ruling only apply to outright prohibition of firearms, leaving the government free to apply onerous and nonsensical regulations on firearm owners?

Any ideas?

The phrasing the Court used seems to give them the latitude to make as wide or narrow a ruling as they wish. without committing to it now.

It's probably one time it's good to have a Bush stacked Court.

Interesting. I thought it looked pretty narrow in that they agreed to rule on three specific parts of the DC code. They don't have to have the same ruling on each one of course. Do you know if they could decide in the middle to make rulings on other parts of the law?


What do you make of the missing 'right to "bear" arms' and the added "for private use in their homes" when they described the 2nd? Maybe it doesn't matter because our right to "bear" arms is currently not a right at all (CA CCW's for example).


"It's probably one time it's good to have a Bush stacked Court."

It's not Bush-stacked. The Bush Family only stacked it with 4 out of 9 judges. There's 2 Reagan stackings, a Ford stacking, and 2 Clinton stackings. That should make you feel better, right?

Anyway, if you find out any more about the Supreme Court deal, please post it.


"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes"

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's not Bush-stacked. The Bush Family only stacked it with 4 out of 9 judges. There's 2 Reagan stackings, a Ford stacking, and 2 Clinton stackings.

When you have 4 judges out of 9, that is a stacking. You need only one more like minded person to get a majority.

[quade 4]

Quote

When you have 4 judges out of 9, that is a stacking. You need only one more like minded person to get a majority.

Yet one would hope that with the long terms of SCOTUS judges they'd be able to drop the pretext of strict party affiliations and interpret the laws and Constitution as a responsible third part of the government.

True, they may be appointed by Presidents, but they certainly ought to act on their own.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver