clemson357

In about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours, the S.Ct. will rule on whether the 2nd Amendment is a right of the people, or a right of a militia.

Any bets?

I wish Decker was still around. I'd bet $100 that they are going to rule in gun owner's favor, and I'd love to rub it in his face.

________________________

Big Smoothy

So, Clemson,

You think they'll vote in favor of the individual.

I think you've researched this topic a lot.

I am a gun owner and former member of the NRA.

Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy
– Henry Kissinger (January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter)

dg806

Yeah, from earlier quotes, I think it is a safe bet they will rule in favor of the gun owner also. If so, I want to hear all the liberal antigun politicians cry!

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

clemson357

I am fairly certain that they will be on our side.

The effect however is marginal. It depends on what level of scrutiny is assigned. If lower scrutiny is assigned, jurisdictions could still get away with trampling people's right. DC for instance could still make it virtually impossible to own a gun, so long as it was possible; i.e. registration, 6 month waiting period, approval of a sheriff required, $1000 application fee, etc.

Its really a sad state for the Country to be in. It is laughable that gun control advocates can argue that a gun ban promotes safety when the jurisdictions in the country with the most gun control have the highest crime.

________________________

dg806

Just in........Court rules in favor of gun owners!!!!!!! Will get the story shortly.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

dg806

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales
Gun laws in high court's sights
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

kbm8795

I think this is the only constitutional right I've ever seen a conservative support.

clemson357

Actually, conservatives are more likely to support constitutional rights. They supported the first amendment recently in rejecting the "Fairness Doctrine," a significant limitation on free speech, supported by liberals.

Liberals are more likely to discard the rights that we have and fabricate new ones out of thin air.

________________________

bio-chem

nice to see the court rule this way

kbm8795

How, exactly, was the Fairness Doctrine a "significant" limitation of "free speech?"

clemson357

I don't know, maybe because it puts limitations on the content of private radio broadcasts.


This is what is so laughable about liberals. They portray themselves as so progressive, always on the side of the downtrodden individual. Yet when it comes right down to it, they are opposed to the rights of the individual in many situations, yet they always try to come up with some dishonest way of clouding the issue.

Let take a guess at what comes next: kbm argues that legislation which restricts the content of what can be broadcast over the radio is not a limitation on free speech, under some strained and disingenious theory.

Not coincidentally, the doctrine applies primarily to radio, which is conservative biased, and exempts television and other types of media which are extremely liberal biased.

________________________

WillBrink

Cliff notes:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause.s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

- --henry schaffer

We win, they lose. The anti self defense anti Const. types will do their best to spin it, but they lost. What's scary is, 4 judges didn't agree, which means they don't think the 2A is an individual right.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

KelJu

Woot woot! This is very good news.

bio-chem

meaning this right is hanging by a thread. combine that with yesterdays language of "a maturing society" and you can see how the liberals are just waiting for that vote to go 5-4 the opposite way. my vote for president will be based on the type of supremem court justice they will nominate

KelJu

We are maturing if maturity means senile.

WillBrink

Well, it's not easy to over turn such a decision, but I agree, it's scary what a thin line it is.

- Will @ BrinkZone


The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

clemson357

Couldn't have asked for more.

________________________

clemson357

I think by all accounts, Stevens is hanging on at least until the next president.

________________________

kbm8795

Actually, what is laughable is the myth conservatives put forward that the "fairness doctrine" significantly limited free speech. Particularly when the conservative philosophy is that the only people entitled to use the public airwaves for "free speech" are those wealthy enough to own the operating systems. Moreover, the doctrine applied to use of the public airwaves, period - not right-wing talk radio. There wasn't much right-wing talk radio back then, mostly because the very idea of allowing opposing viewpoints was outrageous to conservatives, who contended that use of the airwaves should be "market driven," or in the possession of the ownership.

Now, exactly how did the fairness doctrine limit the content of on-air broadcasts to merely the "liberal" point of view?

DOMS

clemson357

Surprisingly, it might be his first post ever without playing the race-card. He opted for the closely related wealth-card. I guess NPR stands for "Non Public Radio-for-the-wealthy."


It is unbelievable to me that someone can argue that legislation which specifically limits the content of radio broadcasts doesn't infringe on free speech.

________________________

kbm8795

You keep repeating this mantra, but provide no evidence that content of radio broadcasts were specifically limited. However, there is plenty of evidence of the lack of varied viewpoints presented on broadcasts today - which once again points to the conservative philosophy that free speech in the use of the publicly owned airwaves is limited to those who can afford to own the operating stations.

kbm8795

I think we are already quite aware of your inability to detect bias in the media.

min0 lee

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

BY ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, June 26th 2008, 11:13 AM
New York's tough handgun laws may come under fire from gun groups after the Supreme Court threw out Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban today.

The court ruled 5-4 that Washington's outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms - a provision that had never been conclusively interpreted.

New York's gun laws, while not as strict as Washington's, require residents to keep rifles and shotguns locked up and put strict licensing requirements on people who want to own a handgun.
Mayor Bloomberg, who has set up a national coalition of mayors opposed to illegal guns, said the court's ruling doesn't affect New York's laws.
"Reasonable regulations are permitted" under the ruling, the mayor said at an East River event. "We will continue to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The Bloomberg administration had filed a Supreme Court brief backing Washington, as did Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Legal experts said it will take time for lower courts to interpret the Supreme Court's decision, then apply it to new cases to determine what gun regulations are reasonable.

Other fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or speak freely, are also subject to reasonable restrictions.
"We'll be examining it and thinking about what issues it presents," said Patrick Brophy, lawyer for the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. "As long as a licensing system is not administered in an arbitrary and capricious way, that may be entirely permissible."

New York's licensing may be vulnerable on two fronts, he said - the $340 fee every three years may be too high to be reasonable, and the minimum six-month wait for a license to be approved may be too long.

"The NRA has its precedent, and now it's going to use it to try to strike down various restrictions around the country," said Columbia Law School professor Nathaniel Persily. "We don't know what the next shoe to drop will be."

clemson357

You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"

Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you have "varied viewpoints." It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you say something we want to hear. It isn't about freedom of speech so long as we like what you have to say. It is about the freedom to say what I want to say without your bullshit restrictions.


Is this really a point that you want to argue?!? That legislating as to the content of certain speech has nothing to do with free speech? Why don't we just say that the freedom from unreasonable searches in seizures in the fourth amendment applies only so long as you haven't comitted a crime, and to insure that you haven't comitted a crime of course we have to search you without probable cause? Why don't we just say that freedom from self-incrimination under the fifth amendment only applies so long as you haven't been charged with a crime? Its facially fucking ridiculous.




Your typical liberal-whining bullshit about wealth or race or some other idealized victim status is completely meritless. The television media is extremely liberally biased, yet excluded from the fairness doctrine. I wonder why. I guess "varied viewpoints" are only a worthy endeavor if the bias swings against the cry babies.

________________________

min0 lee

I would pay to sit down and eat with you 2 guys, oh the fun.

clemson357

First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."

________________________

clemson357

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except when it doesn't like the content of what you have to say."

________________________

DaMayor

My money's on Tigger.



I'll bring the booze.

clemson357

Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.

________________________