Quantcast

The Big Heller Decision Discussion Thread - AFFIRMED 2ND AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bartholomew Roberts, Jun 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    I think it is time to calmly read the entire decision at length later and go over every detail a few times before any more hypothetical arguments based on parts of it.

    Proud to be an American.
    Let this be step two (after the creation of the 2nd Amendment) to abolishing unjust laws and restrictions.
     
  2. DagoRed

    DagoRed Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    142
    Color me happy. :)
     
  3. weisse52

    weisse52 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,345
    Location:
    Bountiful, Utah
    Oh Happy day!

    Just in time.
     
  4. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Well it was a narrow victory, yes. But it was a victory just the same. While the court could have, and in my opinion SHOULD have granted a more powerful opinion, that more powerful opinion may have cost a critical swing vote.

    The court did it's job and answered the narrow questions it was asked, and they answered them, more or less, correctly.

    I am disturbed at the intellectual dishonesty of the liberal leaning justices. I find it astonishing that 4 SCOTUS Justices got this fundamental Right incorrect!!!

    Todays' verdict was not as powerful as I would have liked, but the bottom line is that it is a strong reversal of decades of anti-Right and anti-gun oppression in our country and cities. Categorical anti-gun bans across the nation will start to fall and as more citizens can enjoy the right, positive things will happen and more pro-gun laws will be passed.

    What we needed was our standard "common" individual gun rights affirmed - and that's what we got. We didn't get a definative answer on the full auto or tax stamp issues, but that will come in time. Let's rejoice in what we got. The recognition that our handguns, rifles, EBRs, shotguns, etc. are lawful.

    And as others have noted, we just KICKED A$$ in the public eye. Much of American fence sitters now side with the individual right interpretation and this will have lasting positive effects for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.
     
  5. jkingrph

    jkingrph Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    E. Texas
    I was pleased with the decision, and am amazed at the number of posts on this and numerous other forums, many not firearms related. I knew there was a lot of interest but never expected this.
     
  6. security6

    security6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The ruling doesn't cover more of those issues because at best it would carry no force, and at worst would be viewed as unconstitutional. SCOTUS is not the legislature, they can only decide cases and controversies.
     
  7. bumm

    bumm Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    small town Iowa
    This is a BIG victory and a wonderful day for America in more ways than one. If the 2nd Amendment had been gutted, so could all the rest. The decision was quite narrow, but that's what most of us expected. Now we can build on that victory.
    The scary part is how close we came to losing. ONE vote! The NRA has been criticized for avoiding a Supreme Court case, and this has shown them to have been right in doing so! In earlier courts, we probably would have lost!
    Marty
     
  8. BrianB

    BrianB Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Illinois
    Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit against Chicago within 15 minutes of the ruling. NRA followed, including a few suburbs with handgun bans. 1st salvo....
     
  9. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    1. The fact that it was 5-4 even for such a narrow pro-gun ruling explains why the NRA and many other organizations have been reluctant to pursue lawsuits. And this is the best Supreme Court for our purposes we have had for a long time and the best we are likely to have. Bear in mind Republicans have been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years, and yet we still have four justices willing to uphold an absolute ban on handguns.

    2. Having read the full opinion of the court and the two dissents, I can summarize them this way:

    Scalia: individual right, the purpose of which is to make sure we are well armed for our militia role and for self-defense, and this law violates it. But apparently it just barely violates it, since licensing and registration are ok.

    Stevens, dissent # 1: Individual right, but only for those in the militia.

    Breyer, dissent #2: individual right, but the DC ban is a reasonable response to urban crime. (basically this is Obama's position)

    3. Since all the dissenters signed on to Breyer's dissent, they are all on record as saying there is an individual right for everyone, not just militia members.

    4. I was happy to see the antis forced to discuss history and legislative intent. Once they're on that ground, they will lose.
     
  10. bumm

    bumm Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    small town Iowa
    I forgot to mention in my earlier post... The dissenting justices should be ASHAMED of themselves! They know as well as anyone else what the 2nd Amendment means, and they were willing to contort the meaning and intent of the framers to press their personal anti-gun agendas. They took an oath to uphold the constitution...
    Marty
     
  11. borntwice

    borntwice Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Marty, that's why this presidential election is so critical; we have to keep the leftist out, so the Court isn't packed with more leftists. Thank God that Bush gave us two very good Justices.
     
  12. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,235
    Alas, there is nothing truly astonishing these days about four rogue "justices" who ignore the Constitution to impose personal moral and policy preferences.

    These rogues ought to be run out of town on a rail.
     
  13. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    462
    Did any of you read the commentary on SCOTUSBLOG?? I noticed this, written by Carl Bogus (who apparently wrote an amicus supporting DC).

    Has this guy read NOTHING that Jefferson wrote??? This "insurrectionist theory" was mentioned many times in Jefferson's writing. It just amazes me the extent that some folks will go to (lies and hypebole such as the quote above). I personally believe that Madison and Burke must have HUGE grins on their faces right now!!
     
  14. Groovski

    Groovski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    102
    Scalia didn't say licensing was "ok," he effectively said it wasn't part of this case. If Heller hadn't said he was ok with a license, it would have forced the issue. It's now a future court case.

    All four signed on to both dissents, so they are effectively arguing for and against the militia case at the same time, if your interpretation is correct (and as far as I've digested it, I can't argue). Dissent #2 is particularly odious, though. The dissenters are effectively on record as going with the "living constitution" interpretation as far as I can tell.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

    In other words, sure, they'll agree 2A means an individual right, but that really doesn't mean anything - it's subject to "reasonable" interpretation, or, they can interpret your individual rights however they want, any time they want. These four won't be missed by me when they are no longer on the court.
     
  15. Atla

    Atla Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    350
    Justices get a life appointment. They aren't going to step down until their party is in the white house so they can be replaced with a like-minded individual.

    Such as <> Ginsberg. She falls asleep on the bench, if this happened in a district courtroom she would be removed. She won't step down until the next Left-wing president can replace her.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2008
  16. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    Where does this guy live? Canada? I know it can't be the United States, last I checked I lived in a Constitutional REPUBLIC.
     
  17. bamawrx

    bamawrx Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    ALA-FREEKING-BAMA!
    This wasn't settled in the ruling, but my reading has me thinking the the National Firearms Act IS constitutional, but 922(o) is not. Outright bans would have a high standard to overcome, but extensive restrictions on machine guns would stand.

    We'll see...
     
  18. def

    def Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    Here's my take:

    Personally, I disagree with the Supreme Court decision. I think by going strictly by what the second amendment says, firearms are not an individual's personal right (i.e., I agree with Stevens).

    However, I do not agree with the Washington D.C. law. In fact, I think that owning a firearm should be a right. I could be persuaded to consider an amendment that allows for individuals' rights to arms, if worded carefully. If the people of Washington D.C. disliked the law so much, I wonder why it was never on the ballot so the residents could vote against it (though it may have been, I don't know).

    To summarize: I don't agree with the court's decision, though I do believe that we should be entitled to individual rights to own firearms (within reason, of course). Because of that belief, I subsequently disagree with the law, though, in my opinion, it didn't contradict the constitution. But, for better or for worse, the court made its decision and I respect that decision.
     
  19. borntwice

    borntwice Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    I'm glad you respect the Court's decision, def. Thanks for weighing in.
     
  20. GRB

    GRB member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,774
    I would like to think whoopeeeeee; but I am a skeptic at best. The Heller case involved the District of Columbia. Therefore I wonder, in getting down to the nitty-gritty of legal mumbo-jumbo, does the Heller decision apply to the states, or only to DC? Was that answered directly, or is it still unanswered or left vague and open to more challenges from the states?

    Of course I think, and choose to believe it applies to the states, including NY, MA, NJ, CA and so forth.
     
  21. Travis McGee

    Travis McGee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,790
    Location:
    NE Florida
    Just had a long day outside, away from media, and we're up to PAGE 20!!!

    Wow!!!! Great day!
     
  22. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    462
    def,
    Please explain what you think the amendment says, if it doesn't say it's an individual right. Also, please note that the Constitution is there so that our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. We are NOT a true democracy. We are a constitutional republic. It would be no more appropriate for people to get to vote on whether or not I should have the right to a gun than it would have been for a bunch of racists to vote on whether minority black children could go to school with the majority (whites) back in the 50's and 60's.
     
  23. Groovski

    Groovski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    102
  24. Cavalier Knight

    Cavalier Knight Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    New York NY
    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Statement on the US Supreme Court's Ruling

    ARTICLE
     
  25. Groovski

    Groovski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    102
    It only applies to the Feds...the issue of what states can or can't do has not been decided. Many rights have been "incorporated" to the states by the 14th amendment, which basically means individual rights that can't be denied by the Feds can't be denied by the States either. That's the next big court case, and it is by no means a slam-dunk, imo.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice