TallPine
Member
You want Obama to have the power to declare all gun owners to be "enemy combatants" ???
Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
You want Obama to have the power to declare all gun owners to be "enemy combatants" ???
gbran
Member
Why do people keep dwelling on "self-defense in the home"? Our forefathers didn't restrict our RKBA to the home. They didn't say that we had put our guns in a lock-box when we got on our horses or into our buggies. We don't lose our other rights when we leave home either.
Sheldon J
Member
That alone should be enough to just shut them up, now if we could just get that percentile motivated politically we would never see a anti in office again!ABC News said:
Heller is in large part about home defense, and the court may rule narrowly and decide there is some right to self defense in the home using firearms that the DC ordinance infringes on.
Hypothetically, suppose Obama came out tomorrow and said he has had an epiphany and that instead of confiscating your firearms he has decided that the 2A does apply and US citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms virtually anywhere for self defense without infringement. And suppose you were convinced he was telling the truth. Would that make one bit of difference in your choice for president?
Tom Servo
Member
That's pretty much what this particular case is about. Strictly speaking, the issue at hand is whether DC's total ban on handguns, and its requirement that long guns in the home be inaccessible, is Constitutional.
As such, the "Constitutionality" of bans on weapons in the home is the real issue in this case. Not carry, not "assault weapons," and not the NFA. Gura even retreated on that last point, seeming to agree that machine guns were outside the scope of this case.
This is not a total reversal of every piece of onerous legislation on the books, but if it goes the way I think it will, it will be a good start.
At the very least, it puts the nail in the coffin of the "the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard" argument.
damien
Member
I don't think "people" do. It's just the gun ban/control crowd. They think they have lost the big argument now so they are staking out a smaller argument, but one that is as large as possible, given the circumstances. If they can get people to believe that the 2nd Amendment only protects gun ownership in the home, they can still attack non-home defense weapons (even most gun owners agree .50 BMG and even .223 AR-15's are not ideal home defense weapons), CCW, peacable journey laws, and other things.
El Tejon
Member
That nail was called Peprich (1990).
Paul Helmke was the dumbest man ever to be in Indiana politics. He is at the head of Brady to plunge it to the depths that he plunged Fort Wayne to during the 1970s. There is no other person I would want running Brady than Paul Helmke.
At least he is smart enough to see that his fantasy world of gun control is about to fall apart like a carboard suit case in a Midwestern rain storm.
ctdonath
Member
Indeed, there's a reason why the ancients routinely destroyed their enemies entirely, or assimilated (think: Borg) them entirely ... as opposed to paranoiacally avoiding opposition casualties or ceasing all activities upon mere waving of a flag.
I don't consider it a retreat. The case was never about machine guns, and no way the court is going to rule on machine guns in this particular case.
IMO, the bare minimum they can rule is that there is an individual right to have usable firearms in one's own domicile. That is pretty much how the question was framed, and they were the ones that framed it.
They could still potentially rule that as long as some kind of functional firearm is allowed, that other kinds of firearms could be restricted, or maybe even that a limit on the number of usable firearms is OK..
I think the most likely scenario is some kind of ruling that essentially says there is a right to keep commonly owned long guns and handguns in a condition where they can be used for one's defense in one's home.
TallPine
Member
But if they consider the almighty "militia clause", it would be logical that military arms are guaranteed to citizens
The so called mighty militia clause will prove to be the end of and individual's right to keep and bear arms if the court ties bearing arms to the militia. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the power to proscribe the equipment of the militia that may be called into federal service. If the court ties RKBA to militia service all it takes is for congress to pass a law saying the militia shall be equipped with brooms, shovels and pitch forks and that's all you can legally have.
Jeff
JN01
Member
Translation: "Even though we don't give a crap what 75% of the public thinks or their rights, the Supreme Court is forcing us to abandon our lies, so we need to come up with new ones"
Of course, they never believed in the right to self-defense in the first place.
gc70
Member
The Bradys see the handwriting on the wall and are preparing for the next PR campaign after SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self defense totally unrelated to the militia.
The Court did not write the Question in order to rule on existing preconceptions, either pro- or anti-RKBA, but in such a manner that it will lead to their predetermined conclusion.
First, the Question only addresses handguns and "other firearms." An expansive view of "arms" including all weaponry is not on the table. A narrower view of individually-portable, non-explosive, projectile-firing weaponry is likely, which eliminates awkward issues with hand grenades, artillery pieces, and nukes.
Second, the Question only addresses the use of handguns and other firearms in homes. Protecting one's home is readily defensible. And staying within the home is tidy; the vast world outside the home presents messy issues with conflicting rights (does your 2A right trump someone else's property rights) and unintended consequences (i.e. instant, national carry, concealed or open).
Third, the Question delinks the right to keep and bear arms from militia participation. The militia clause poses a quandry because it suggests militia/military weapons (substitute "machine guns" to fulfill gun owners' fantasies or the Bradys' nightmares). The militia clause also presents bizarre possibilities: what kind of Constitutional right do you have when Congress has near total authority to control the right (see Jeff White's warning); and what kind of Constitutional right only applies to males and expires on your 46th birthday (10 USC 311). Delinking the militia clause eliminates such issues.
Where does this all lead? To a personal right to self-defense in the home using common handguns, rifles, and shotguns. If we want a broader array of weapons or want the RKBA guaranteed outside the home, we have to go back to SCOTUS (undoubtedly repeatedly) with other cases.
The Court did not write the Question in order to rule on existing preconceptions, either pro- or anti-RKBA, but in such a manner that it will lead to their predetermined conclusion.
First, the Question only addresses handguns and "other firearms." An expansive view of "arms" including all weaponry is not on the table. A narrower view of individually-portable, non-explosive, projectile-firing weaponry is likely, which eliminates awkward issues with hand grenades, artillery pieces, and nukes.
Second, the Question only addresses the use of handguns and other firearms in homes. Protecting one's home is readily defensible. And staying within the home is tidy; the vast world outside the home presents messy issues with conflicting rights (does your 2A right trump someone else's property rights) and unintended consequences (i.e. instant, national carry, concealed or open).
Third, the Question delinks the right to keep and bear arms from militia participation. The militia clause poses a quandry because it suggests militia/military weapons (substitute "machine guns" to fulfill gun owners' fantasies or the Bradys' nightmares). The militia clause also presents bizarre possibilities: what kind of Constitutional right do you have when Congress has near total authority to control the right (see Jeff White's warning); and what kind of Constitutional right only applies to males and expires on your 46th birthday (10 USC 311). Delinking the militia clause eliminates such issues.
Where does this all lead? To a personal right to self-defense in the home using common handguns, rifles, and shotguns. If we want a broader array of weapons or want the RKBA guaranteed outside the home, we have to go back to SCOTUS (undoubtedly repeatedly) with other cases.
TallPine
Member
ilbob, I was commenting on a previous post - not the Heller case specifically
Ar15s arent good home defense weapons? True. But they are good homeland defense weapons. If we cannot have them in our homes like any other gun then I dont see what magically lets us have them elsewhere.
That argument does bring up a point, though. Alot of gun owners don't own every kind of gun. Not that many own assault weapons, not that many own semi-auto handguns, and out of those that do, the majority don't hold more than 10 rounds even in places without magizine restriction laws. That right there is the problem: alot of that 70% probably think that gun ownership is for self-defense and hunting, simply because they don't put alot of effort or thought into the issue. Are they pro-gun? Yes. Are they as pro-gun as us? Chances are not so great for such an assumption.
We just gotta hope that they still view gun rights to the point where you can have what you want even if you don't need it. If the 'need' argument keeps getting thrown around, then we'll be communists by 2050.
That argument does bring up a point, though. Alot of gun owners don't own every kind of gun. Not that many own assault weapons, not that many own semi-auto handguns, and out of those that do, the majority don't hold more than 10 rounds even in places without magizine restriction laws. That right there is the problem: alot of that 70% probably think that gun ownership is for self-defense and hunting, simply because they don't put alot of effort or thought into the issue. Are they pro-gun? Yes. Are they as pro-gun as us? Chances are not so great for such an assumption.
We just gotta hope that they still view gun rights to the point where you can have what you want even if you don't need it. If the 'need' argument keeps getting thrown around, then we'll be communists by 2050.
Quote:
Quote:
Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan.
But D.C. claimed it was handguns that were "super dangerous." Which is it?
~~~~~
Bingo!
Catherine
Quote:
Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan.
But D.C. claimed it was handguns that were "super dangerous." Which is it?
~~~~~
Bingo!
Catherine
Actually, AR15s, and .223s, are a great home defense weapon. Just know your firearm, set it up as fits your need and use the right ammo. I used to think I would not use my ARs for home defense too, until I took some tactical rifle courses and saw how useful they really are for that purpose.
As always, you need to fit the tool to the need.
As always, you need to fit the tool to the need.
- Status
