Vitamin G
Member
General Geoff said:
You mean AR-15's and Varminting isn't sporting?
The Big Heller Decision Discussion Thread - AFFIRMED 2ND AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
You mean AR-15's and Varminting isn't sporting?
DC is only setting themselves up to get their butt handed to them on future legal challeges.
He can interpret it any way he likes.... and with this precedent, they will likely pound sand.
He's made it clear that every single firearm type/usage will have to be challenged in court.
Yes, my friends.... your tax money at work. The lawyers will get rich.
-- John
He can interpret it any way he likes.... and with this precedent, they will likely pound sand.
He's made it clear that every single firearm type/usage will have to be challenged in court.
Yes, my friends.... your tax money at work. The lawyers will get rich.
-- John
Poper
Member
Am I the only one that found this footnote interesting?
Poper
SLAP!
Poper
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
Mayor Fenty just said on FOX that Automatic and Semi-Automatic firearms will still be prohibited.
It looks like this one is going back to Court, since single shots are not the class of weapon that is overwhelmingly chosen for self defense.
It looks like this one is going back to Court, since single shots are not the class of weapon that is overwhelmingly chosen for self defense.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Big45
member
A win is a win is a win is a win is a win is a win is a win is a win.
The funniest thing yet was what I read over at the Brady Blog site after the decision, acting as if this will make new firearm legislation easier to pass for them. Note the statement about the "slippery slope" argument. That really had me going.
Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.
“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.
“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.
“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”
:banghead:
Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.
“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.
“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.
“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”
:banghead:
fletcher
Member
Pretty much acknowledges that gun laws have -0- effect on crime.
What was predicted vs what we got:
This was estimated originally as only 75% accurate:
Predictions:
Questions the court would ponder:
Historically firearm bans have been used as a form of oppression; however, some restrictions may apply to type of firearm, location and who may possess. Check.
Should a ban on handguns be based on a high crime rate at the expense of self defense in or out of the home? 50%-Left partially undecided, but bans are prohibited. Chicago you're next!
If the militia and the people are one in the same, then can we limit the types of arms that a civilian may own to effectively provide for the common defense?
This one was wishy-washy, left undetermined from what I briefly read.
The individual right to keep and bear common firearms is directly tied to the inherent right of self defense, which must be considered when restrictions are formulated Check.
What restrictions, if any, are allowable on the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment? Left as TBD.
Conclusion predicted:
Conclusion: The inherent right of US Citizens to keep and bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment; it may be limited only under clearly defined circumstances Got the first part here, they mentioned the second part about possible limitations, that will be left to the future in terms of specific challenges...
Unfortunately we got a very narrow interpretation, possibly due to the liberal makeup of the court and necessary to just win 5-4. Many questions are still left for the future or even to the State and Federal Governments to decide.
This was estimated originally as only 75% accurate:
Predictions:
Questions the court would ponder:
Historically firearm bans have been used as a form of oppression; however, some restrictions may apply to type of firearm, location and who may possess. Check.
Should a ban on handguns be based on a high crime rate at the expense of self defense in or out of the home? 50%-Left partially undecided, but bans are prohibited. Chicago you're next!
If the militia and the people are one in the same, then can we limit the types of arms that a civilian may own to effectively provide for the common defense?
This one was wishy-washy, left undetermined from what I briefly read.
The individual right to keep and bear common firearms is directly tied to the inherent right of self defense, which must be considered when restrictions are formulated Check.
What restrictions, if any, are allowable on the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment? Left as TBD.
Conclusion predicted:
Conclusion: The inherent right of US Citizens to keep and bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment; it may be limited only under clearly defined circumstances Got the first part here, they mentioned the second part about possible limitations, that will be left to the future in terms of specific challenges...
Unfortunately we got a very narrow interpretation, possibly due to the liberal makeup of the court and necessary to just win 5-4. Many questions are still left for the future or even to the State and Federal Governments to decide.
General Geoff
Member
Most modern revolvers are double action, and thus semi-automatic in operation as well. Fenty's a lunatic, and he's digging his grave deeper by going off the deep end on the only viable type of handgun used for self defense.
Big45
member
Fenty has been a blessing for gun owners. The man just doesn't know what he is doing. Incompetence at its finest. The anti gunners must want to drown him haha
fast eddie
Member
Dammit this thread is moving too fast; I can't keep up! I'm fast but not that fast.
Davo
Member
Youve gotta love the brady bunch.
Bookworm
Member
Lawfully, the DC mayor cannot prohibit semi-auto handguns. As of this morning, there is no handgun ban at all in DC. There is no trigger lock law at all. DC does not get the chance to "change" their law, it was struck down already as unconstitutional.
DC would have to write a new law to ban semi-autos -- which would fail as they are clearly in common use.
SCOTUS majority made it clear concealed carry may be constitutional regulated, but OPEN carry got no such language.
SCOTUS upheld MG bans, but other stuff like extreme licensing requirements, the CA ugly gun bans, etc. will not fly.
SCOTUS okayed most licensing restrictions/background checks providing to check for "felons and the mentally ill" Any other qualification would be in violation of the second amendment, as I read the decision.
DC would have to write a new law to ban semi-autos -- which would fail as they are clearly in common use.
SCOTUS majority made it clear concealed carry may be constitutional regulated, but OPEN carry got no such language.
SCOTUS upheld MG bans, but other stuff like extreme licensing requirements, the CA ugly gun bans, etc. will not fly.
SCOTUS okayed most licensing restrictions/background checks providing to check for "felons and the mentally ill" Any other qualification would be in violation of the second amendment, as I read the decision.
Obama just commented. He STILL doesn't get it.
Paraphrasing:
He supports individual right to keep and bear arms for hunters and sportsmen."
Pardon me, but I didn't see where hunting and sportsmanship was the ONLY legal uses of firearms. Notice that he ommits the SC's actual statements regarding Self-Defense?
-- John
Paraphrasing:
He supports individual right to keep and bear arms for hunters and sportsmen."
Pardon me, but I didn't see where hunting and sportsmanship was the ONLY legal uses of firearms. Notice that he ommits the SC's actual statements regarding Self-Defense?
-- John
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
It's 9-0 on the individual right to own a gun, which overrules the old view. However they are about as reluctant to say it as a 14 year old admitting he loves his parents.
scrat
Member
yep im thinking the brady bunch should just stick to tv shows.
Based on earlier comments, I have a thought on the 2nd amendment being a "right to self-defense" versus the 2nd amendment being a "right to prevent a tyrannical government."
Perhaps Scalia worded his opinion to emphasize the right to self-defense in order to make the incorporation fight easier. It is much easier to argue that states should be prevented from infringing the 2nd amendment when we are talking about self-preservation/self defense (a very individualized right), rather than preventing a tyrannical government (an interest that individuals and the several states share).
Imagine if Scalia had only talked about preventing a tyrannical government. It would be easy to argue that the 2nd amendment should NOT be incorporated because the several states have no reason to go along with a tyrannical federal government. In other words, the diverse interest of the several states is protection enough against a sovereign, tyrannical, federal government.
In addition, Scalia, while not emphasizing the right to arms in order to prevent tyranny, did mention that preventing tyranny was one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment. (See Majority opinion pages 24-25, 27). IMHO, a good decision by the majority.
Perhaps Scalia worded his opinion to emphasize the right to self-defense in order to make the incorporation fight easier. It is much easier to argue that states should be prevented from infringing the 2nd amendment when we are talking about self-preservation/self defense (a very individualized right), rather than preventing a tyrannical government (an interest that individuals and the several states share).
Imagine if Scalia had only talked about preventing a tyrannical government. It would be easy to argue that the 2nd amendment should NOT be incorporated because the several states have no reason to go along with a tyrannical federal government. In other words, the diverse interest of the several states is protection enough against a sovereign, tyrannical, federal government.
In addition, Scalia, while not emphasizing the right to arms in order to prevent tyranny, did mention that preventing tyranny was one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment. (See Majority opinion pages 24-25, 27). IMHO, a good decision by the majority.
gretske
Member
Oh, he gets it alright. This guy is slicker than Slick Willy. He takes nuancing to a new level.
Watch out for his ”common sense gun laws.“ Whose common sense? Be afraid, be very afraid.
I've seen quite a few people freaking out and being upset over this statement:
This struck me as a direct attempt to get rid of the Miller precedent that a firearm must be militia related in order for it to be protected under the 2nd. Scalia had already stated in orals that he felt Miller was lacking and needed to be revisited so I believe that's what this statement is meant to do.
Also everyone seems to miss one important thing in this statement as well:
Note that it says COMMERCIAL sale. I take this to mean such things as background checks and 4473's, not what others seem to think meaning bans on certain purchases.
This struck me as a direct attempt to get rid of the Miller precedent that a firearm must be militia related in order for it to be protected under the 2nd. Scalia had already stated in orals that he felt Miller was lacking and needed to be revisited so I believe that's what this statement is meant to do.
Also everyone seems to miss one important thing in this statement as well:
Note that it says COMMERCIAL sale. I take this to mean such things as background checks and 4473's, not what others seem to think meaning bans on certain purchases.
Big45
member
Haha Helmke just said "restricting" military style weapons would still be ok (he caught himself too), the word BAN is now officially off the table I love it
Great day to be an American
Great day to be an American
- Status