Dravur
Member
uh yeah. That is what the constitution is for... to limit the excesses of power in a government
Heller Decided! (several threads merged, new ones will be locked)
- Thread starter 30 cal slob
- Start date
- Status
uh yeah. That is what the constitution is for... to limit the excesses of power in a government
bogie
Member
Important thing is that it affirms the right of Joe Blow to own a boomstick for self-protection. That's a MAJOR!
Titan6
member
Thanks hso, the SCOTUS web site is not displaying for me. Maybe a little too much traffic today? 
IT could have been better, but it could have been a whole lot worse as well.
IT could have been better, but it could have been a whole lot worse as well.
Northslope Nimrod
Member
WHERE IS THE OPINION ITSELF?
Someone please post.
I don't see it on the their site.
Someone please post.
I don't see it on the their site.
Harley Quinn
Member
Jdude
With a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme court has Affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. They have found two of the three D.C. provisions to be unconstitutional.
The level of scrutiny has not been decided.
Incorporation has not been decided.
The decision is found to be an individual right.
*************
Thanks for the Blog and all your time involved in trying to sort this...
****The purpose of the right is individual meaning personal defense.****
The machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.
Felons 922(g) are not mentioned at this time.
Armor piercing handgun ammunition is not mentioned at this time. 921(a)(17)(b)
The Lautenberg amendment is not mentioned at this time. 922(g)(9)
The gun free schools act is not mentioned at this time. 922(q)
Background checks are not mentioned at this time.
Plus....
laws putting conditions on gun sales.
That is so they did not kill the background checks, me thinks.
********
Regards
With a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme court has Affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. They have found two of the three D.C. provisions to be unconstitutional.
The level of scrutiny has not been decided.
Incorporation has not been decided.
The decision is found to be an individual right.
*************
Thanks for the Blog and all your time involved in trying to sort this...
****The purpose of the right is individual meaning personal defense.****
The machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.
Felons 922(g) are not mentioned at this time.
Armor piercing handgun ammunition is not mentioned at this time. 921(a)(17)(b)
The Lautenberg amendment is not mentioned at this time. 922(g)(9)
The gun free schools act is not mentioned at this time. 922(q)
Background checks are not mentioned at this time.
Plus....
laws putting conditions on gun sales.
That is so they did not kill the background checks, me thinks.
********
Regards
Hk91-762mm
Member
I told you they would affirm the 2A but allow resonable restrictions on guns and gun tryes---IE==EBRs=
Sorry im right !=? >
----nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
[[[[[[“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179]]]]]
SO its ok to have muzzle loading BP guns and flintlocks -====RIGHT !!!!
Sorry im right !=? >
----nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
[[[[[[“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179]]]]]
SO its ok to have muzzle loading BP guns and flintlocks -====RIGHT !!!!
brighamr
Member
According to this reasoning: "According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit."
It was unlawful to ban MGs in the first place, as they were in common use (though regulated) for self defense of one's home. Oh, I really hope to see a 922o case in the near future
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit."
It was unlawful to ban MGs in the first place, as they were in common use (though regulated) for self defense of one's home. Oh, I really hope to see a 922o case in the near future
Cougfan2
Member
If you go to the Brady Campaign web site it now automatically takes you to a link that is whining for money for their "Gun Law Defense Fund". I am sure they had this link ready months ago. The SCOTUS decision is a victory in a big battle, but certainly the not the last one. The Brady bunch will still try to kill firearm posession by a death of a thousand cuts. 
What in Heller can be used against us?
Since Heller has been decided for us, it is time to see what could go wrong and be used against us.
The majority decided that the machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.
So to eliminate arms, they only have to be shown to not be in common use. What is the problem here?
Curio and Relic firearms- those that are limited by nature, age, or deterioration and are generally not available in the millions.
New firearms that have not left the assembly line. Since they haven't made it to the people's hands, obviously they are not in common use.
Any weapon which there are less of than others. Have an AR or SKS? Too bad. Ruger 10/22s are the most common rifle, and he only one you may have.
The 200 dollar tax stamp has been left in place. Hence the stamp can be extended to any other arm (since registration was left constitutional) and when they become uncommon or rare, they get banned too.
What else do you all see that might go wrong?
Since Heller has been decided for us, it is time to see what could go wrong and be used against us.
The majority decided that the machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.
So to eliminate arms, they only have to be shown to not be in common use. What is the problem here?
Curio and Relic firearms- those that are limited by nature, age, or deterioration and are generally not available in the millions.
New firearms that have not left the assembly line. Since they haven't made it to the people's hands, obviously they are not in common use.
Any weapon which there are less of than others. Have an AR or SKS? Too bad. Ruger 10/22s are the most common rifle, and he only one you may have.
The 200 dollar tax stamp has been left in place. Hence the stamp can be extended to any other arm (since registration was left constitutional) and when they become uncommon or rare, they get banned too.
What else do you all see that might go wrong?
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
Long Overdue
This ruling is LONG OVERDUE and an initial reading makes good sense.
This ruling is LONG OVERDUE and an initial reading makes good sense.
ZombieHunter
Member
This week just keeps getting better
ProguninTN
Member
Bans
I wonder if the floodgates are now open... Let the follow-up challenges to other jurisdictions with gun bans (such as Chicago, IL) begin.
I wonder if the floodgates are now open... Let the follow-up challenges to other jurisdictions with gun bans (such as Chicago, IL) begin.
ADKWOODSMAN
Member
There is now hope, the Berlin wall fell and now a "wrong" gun law. O.K.
jard
Member
Sweet, this is going to bum so many of the antis out. I love it. Hip Hip Horray for the BILL OF RIGHTS
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
How generous of the men in black to allow us lowly citizens to be able to exercise our right as written 200+ years ago.
How low we have sunk when we applaud a right we already had but was not recognized by the men who wield the power.
Nice sheep. Applaud what should have been ours from the very beggining.
How low we have sunk when we applaud a right we already had but was not recognized by the men who wield the power.
Nice sheep. Applaud what should have been ours from the very beggining.
Titan6
member
You need to read the dissent. Pure Gold.
Because we say they can't?
Everybody knows that people in cities do not have rights.
Because trigger locks were so popular in the 18th Century.
Because we say they can't?
Everybody knows that people in cities do not have rights.
Because trigger locks were so popular in the 18th Century.
I'm not surprised that 4 justices dissented, but very concerned. One justice away from going the other way today, and in the future.
Even if the 4 dislike guns, the constitution is the constitution, period! It is very clear that the 10 ammendments are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and for 4 of them not to agree with this because of their dislike for guns is troubling.
Even if the 4 dislike guns, the constitution is the constitution, period! It is very clear that the 10 ammendments are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and for 4 of them not to agree with this because of their dislike for guns is troubling.
ViniferaVizslas
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Messages
- 59
Tribune Poll
Chicago's ban is next.
Tell our anti-gun paper what you think of the ruling (poll):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,1646975.story
Chicago's ban is next.
Tell our anti-gun paper what you think of the ruling (poll):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,1646975.story
Harley Quinn, thanks for reading.
Everyone else, my non professional analysis can be found at:
http://unstoppablemadman.blogspot.com/
Everyone else, my non professional analysis can be found at:
http://unstoppablemadman.blogspot.com/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
