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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, so many thoughts but overall a good day. I am sad that it took the Supreme Court case to confirm my god given rights but I am happy someone finally cleared it up.

My second thought is that all the anti's are currently happy with the "reasonable restriction" aspects. I think if they take the time to read is a little deeper they are not going to be so happy. Scalia wrote and beautiful decision, clearly giving thought to future litigation. You can no longer "ban" a whole class of weapons. Even so called "assault weapons" would be considered a class of weapons in common use as they by the anti's definition are civilian versions of military weapons.

The big city's and the Brady Bunch are going to be spending so much time on defense to legal challenges that they will break themselves. This decision if it has done nothing else has turned the tide from defense to offense. After all how dare anyone try to restrict my clearly defined constitutional right to keep and bear arms. When was the last time any of us could say that.
 
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Well, Justice Stevens would have us believe that over 200 years ago the Framers were not concerned about freedom, but rather about providing tools to elected officials.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Another fuzzy-headed view. Breyer apparently believes in a right to defend oneself where none is needed, but in the very place where it's needed most, inside a person's home in a crime-ridden urban area, Justice Breyer can find no such right. So he must believe that there exist different classes of constitutional protection - based in this instance upon where one lives. Perhaps Justice Breyer should re-read Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al. But since he doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, it's not surprising that he's also willing to disregard the 14th - which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law and is the foundation of the U.S. civil rights movement.

These guys are shining examples of social legislators on the bench, rather than strict constitutionalists, ie. "I don't care what the law says, this is what I think it should say"
 
This decision is a reprieve, not a "full pardon."

We're one vote away from losing our RKBA, and possibly initiating CW2.

And that's the only reason I'll probably hold my nose, close my eyes and vote for Juan McShamnesty.

The blind hope that he'll not nominate another Ruth Beider Meinhoff.
 
I am not happy with the outcome. What a democracy-overthrowing-preparation pile of garbage. When the 2nd was written every man carried a gun holstered openly. These judges know very well that the 2nd is there to guarantee that the government doesn't become a tyrant. So why say that militia type of guns isn't covered in the right to bear arms? This stinks of leftwing politics long way. I'm angry. Time to write the judges a letter, if anything to make myself feel good. ****ing bastards! ****!
 
I'm just a simple caveman...the concept of fire frightens and confuses me...

But it seems obvious to me that if a ban on all handguns is unconstitutional, shouldn't an AWB be as well? After all, they're both blanket bans on an entire class of arms.
 
What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law ... than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government?
Click to expand...
20th century: 100,000,000 dead at the hands of their own government.
Yeah, the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government.
 
We won a big one today! The ruling was narrow, but that's all that could be realistically expected. The Supreme Court rules on the case before it, and the good guys won. It's not reasonable to expect the ruling to invalidate all other gun laws. Those are left for future cases to decide, but now we have a more solid basis to work from.
I'm enjoying watching the libs and anti's trying to spin this thing!

The fact that the court came within ONE VOTE of gutting a major amendment to the Bill of Rights shows well though, that we have to be very careful with who we elect to appoint future justices!
Marty
 
5-4 with 4 that can't read

We have to remember that it was this close to going the wrong way and that we have 4 coconuts :fire:and a want to be that will be hearing cases on how far the government can limit our rights in the near future and could rule for all kinds of "common sense" regulations.
 
I'm with Travis. These judges are trying to reconciliate the beliefs of two diametrically opposed sides. And, looking at the candidate's responses, I'm thinking, Wow, McCain is trying to buy my vote, and Obama is trying to have me believe he wouldn't ban everything I have, and attempt to make me a felon.
 
Experts: Court ruling won't affect New York gun laws‏

(Plenty of kool aid to go around. Pour yourself a nice tall glass ...)

Local law enforcement officials don't expect any problems enforcing state and city gun laws in the wake of a momentous U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday defining a person's right under the Constitution to have a firearm in the home.

New York City prosecutors believe that current gun licensing laws are reasonable regulations that are safe from the kind of challenge that scuttled the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession.

By a 5-to 4 vote, the high court found that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment trumped an outright prohibition on handgun possession enacted in the nation's capital. The right was unconnected to service in a militia described in the amendment, said Justice Antonin Scalia, also noting that it didn't undercut laws barring felons or the mentally ill from possessing weapons.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said he thinks the high court is still allowing local lawmakers to control guns.

"While the court has limited the authority of Congress to control guns, it does importantly acknowledge that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government ... thus allowing state and local government to enact reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Brown said.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan agreed with Brown.

"The affect in New York City will be nil," said Hynes.

"It shouldn't affect common-sense regulations," said city police Commissioner Ray Kelly. "We believe we have common-sense regulations here in the city."

A spokesman for Brown said the city has issued about 20,000 gun permits, of which 14,600 were for residences and 2,300 were to carry a handgun.

Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice declined to comment, while Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota said he hadn't read the decision.

"Overall, I think it's a fair decision. I think that it could have been a lot worse," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a leading gun-control advocate.

She said she believed local "reasonable gun laws" were safe, as was her 2007 legislation making it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the decision underscores that criminals have no right to purchase guns.

Legal scholars believe the true ramifications of the ruling will take some time to develop in the courts.

"There is a lot of very fuzzy language about what is reasonable. ... What may be reasonable in the Bronx may be different from what's reasonable in potato fields in Suffolk County," said Eric M. Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University.

Brown said a footnote in the decision upheld earlier Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states.

However, Troy Gaitras, a lawyer in West Virginia who has a gun case scheduled for argument at the high court in the fall, said some of the precedent Brown referred to was 100 years old and legally shaky.

"I think it is a fair reading that this decision will be extended to the states," he said.

"It is always hard to say where the court will go in the future," said Christopher Eisgruber, a professor at Princeton University.
Click to expand...

ARTICLE
 
mordechaianiliewicz writes

"I'm with Travis. These judges are trying to reconciliate the beliefs of two diametrically opposed sides. And, looking at the candidate's responses, I'm thinking, Wow, McCain is trying to buy my vote, and Obama is trying to have me believe he wouldn't ban everything I have, and attempt to make me a felon"

Obama never says we have the right to keep arms, just bear them.
 
Just a thought.

Although I am joyous today, tomorrow I will be bitter again, cling to my 642 in my pocket, and read the Book of John, or some thing in the Bible.

Guess I'm stuck in being a TWP....
 
I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet. The supreme court took the 'natural right' out of the 2nd amm. and replaced it with an official ruling..
The key words in their decision had to do with 'reasonable restrictions'
I smelled a rat when they accepted this case.

"WASHINGTON (June 26) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history."
Click to expand...
Also...I think they left something out there...
 
While we're all slapping each other on the back and yahooing, Nancy "the commie" Pelosi is already looking for ways around the ruling. You have to remember that to the facist democratik, this is merely another starting place.
Like all those communists that supposedly evaporated when Reagan won the cold war, these guys are like the belly button lint that just won't come out unless it's flushed out.

Take a deep breath, and stay vigilant.

WT
 
Soybomb

Before the ink was dry on the Heller Ruling...
ISRA files suit against Chicago in Federal Court

The Illinois State Rifle Association, together with Second Amendment Foundation and several individual plaintiffs, filed suit against the City of Chicago in federal court this morning at 9:15 CDT. More information will be made available in a statement from the attorneys tomorrow.
Click to expand...

That is excellent. Take no prisoners! :evil:
 
Well they say that that the gains you make are the most risk right after your victory.

Winston Churchhill also said, "never do your enemy a small injury."

With that said however, Scalia did a good job of not only laying the foundations for the litigations to come, but in the case of a subsequent activist court that would erode the right, he has laid the foundation for farther subsequent court to correct such erosion.

What he has done, is to firmly, clearly and thoroughly laydown the foundation of how "The Court" is to view and think about the Second Amendment in future generations. As long as The Court respects Stare Decisis, it will have to consider and explain its rulings against this foundation.

Be Ever Vigilant
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
Replies
5
Views
882
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Was Heller Insignificant?
Replies
18
Views
821
LaBulldog
L
E
  • Locked
Summary of positive effects of Heller
Replies
2
Views
431
everallm
E
W
  • Locked
The Three Steps In Heller vs D.C:SCOTUS'S Crucial Answers
Replies
0
Views
375
Winchester 73
W
J
  • Locked
The Impact of Heller on the Illinois State Legislature
Replies
2
Views
461
Geneseo1911
G
Back
Top