Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow - June 26, 2008

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It should be interpeted only within the context the framers used and meant.

I think most, if not all, of the arguments heard by SCOTUS revolve around this issue. The language of our society has evolved over hundreds of years. Not only use, but also intent in some cases.

The real question being answered by these decisions, in simple terms IMO is: more govt in your lives, or less govt? This pendulum continues to swing, and hopefully will never stop. Also, let's hope it doesn't topple over.

Interesting point.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

What's really disgusting is that Feinstein used to have a CCW. So, apparently, it's okay for HER to protect herself, but nobody else.

Very good point

Did she let it drop after she got called on her crap?

I thought she still had the CCW.

No, she doesn't have it anymore.

[mnealtx 0]

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalpersonalprofiles/p/SenFeinstein.htm

Quote

Senator Feinstein is a staunch gun control advocate. Despite her stance, in the 1970s, she obtained a concealed firearms carry permit, and carried a handgun with her.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Quote

A CCW permit was then rare in California, and was the only such permit in San Francisco.

Sort of like the Chicago aldermen... "It's good to be the Queen".

Quote

At the time, she was the target of a terrorist group that had shot out all the windows in her home. She no longer carries a gun.

But those peons in the projects don't need to protect themselves...

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

[sfc 1]

I'm relieved that this decision went the way it did.
The basic principles of the 2nd has been decoded into modern language.

The part of it all that made the most sense was:
"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

These guys are really smart, all the talk had left me very polarized on this subject and I didn't even think on how a compromise could be found.
It is unlikely that we can ever stop a criminal getting a gun but the idea that 2nd gave a criminal (or nutjob) the right to have a gun really worried me (until they made this decision). I hope that the various folks involved in gun debates (NRA and government) will now be able work together to come up with a way of preventing weapons getting into the hands of undesirables now that the basic rights of law abiding folks has been settled.
There will still be loads of arguments about what kind of guns are legal (the line between nukes and muskets has to be drawn) but the government (at all levels) will never be able to circumvent the basic right of the individual to arm themselves.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But goes against his votes or non votes.

Hmm. He voted to prohibit confiscation of guns during emergencies, so your claim is not 100% true.

More info on this topic


FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to
bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited
Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and
sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who
use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second
Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the
leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park,
which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records
searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification
card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the
military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on
gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm
dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money
is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and
a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005.
(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this
survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005.
(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political
Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007.
(http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama
Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.
(http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007.
(http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008,
(http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .”
(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

From the Chicago Tribune


Repeal the 2nd Amendment
June 27, 2008
No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,2350076.story

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

The staff of the Chicago Tribune have gone so far to the left that even the LA Times seems centrist in their views.

What would you expect from Daleyland?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The staff of the Chicago Tribune have gone so far to the left that even the LA Times seems centrist in their views.

What would you expect from Daleyland?

Have you been following the "new" law DC is proposing since the SC kicked thier collective asses?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

Not yet, but I am sure Chicago is crafting a turd just like it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not yet, but I am sure Chicago is crafting a turd just like it.

Basicily it says (and it must still be an early draft) that "if" you are using your gun for self defence then it can be unlocked and loaded. If you are not "using" it for self defense then it must be unloaded, disassembled or have a trigger lock on while stored in a safe.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The staff of the Chicago Tribune have gone so far to the left that even the LA Times seems centrist in their views.

What would you expect from Daleyland?

Yup - So far to the left that they endorsed Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What would you expect from Daleyland?

I've concluded that Daley doesn't hasn't met alot of law abiding citizens in Chicago? Where the hell does he hang out?

We are all engines of karma

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

The staff of the Chicago Tribune have gone so far to the left that even the LA Times seems centrist in their views.

What would you expect from Daleyland?

Yup - So far to the left that they endorsed Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

Please explain how an endorsement that is made to benefit the Tribunes own Business is connected to being a conservative paper.

They flap in the wind like a white flag.

Whatever suits them, and their Liberal Utopian wishes.

[Kennedy 0]

Actually, if the (ahem) "journalists" in Chicago would go out and read the Miller decision, they would find out that in 1939 the SCUS found that the 2nd amendment protected the right of individuals to own firearms that are 'part of oridnary military equipment.'

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

Yup..they try to show it supports a "collective" right (now struck DOWN, thank you USSC!), when it was about the gun he had.

Hmm...I wonder if I could use Miller to sue fed.gov to get a full-up M4?

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Actually, if the (ahem) "journalists" in Chicago would go out and read the Miller decision, they would find out that in 1939 the SCUS found that the 2nd amendment protected the right of individuals to own firearms that are 'part of oridnary military equipment.'

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

I think they "know" it too but they have to bastardize something to make a point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln