Quantcast

Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns!!!

Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by N8 v2.0, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    :cheers:

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. ire

    ire Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,202
    Awesome! I'm surprised the vote was that close....damn dissenting justices :disgust1:
     
  3. johnbryanpeters

    Rep/Likes:
    239 / 2,522
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    24,397
    Location:
    Making moss sad in New Haven, Vermont
    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, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
    2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
    Syllabus
    of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
    feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    (c)
    The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d)
    The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
    (e)
    Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f)
    None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
    Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
    2.
    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    3.
    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
    the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
    Syllabus
    prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
    and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
     
  4. sanjuro

    sanjuro Tube Smuggler

    Rep/Likes:
    7 / 0
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,472
    Location:
    SF
    I hope the remove the assault rifle ban in DC so we can see good old fashion drivebys.

    Maybe the Tommy Gun will come back into style...
     
  5. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    like 'old skool' ever left...
     
  6. JohnE

    JohnE filthy rascist

    Rep/Likes:
    146 / 640
    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,681
    Location:
    Front Range, dude...
    I hope so...I have been waiting for the true gangster style to make a comeback.
     
  7. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    no chit... .32 auto and 9mm are for pussies... .45 acp 1911's/tommy guns & 30'06 BAR's rock my homies wurld..
     
    #7 -   Jun 26, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  8. dante

    dante Unabomber

    Rep/Likes:
    11 / 8
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,998
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    ok, this is where the court's decision totally loses me. the right to bear arms is not black and white, and many types of firearms can be designated as illegal (fully automatics, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, etc). so... why is it the court who is able to decide what can be made illegal (automatics) and what can't be (handguns)? why isn't this a state's rights or local rights issue?
     
  9. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    At its most basic level, it isn't a local issue because the Supreme Court says it isn't, they don't need a reason besides "Nuh-uh".
     
  10. Westy

    Westy the teste

    Rep/Likes:
    436 / 2,745
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    35,901
    Location:
    Sleazattle
    Sum gud huntin' in DC.
     
  11. dante

    dante Unabomber

    Rep/Likes:
    11 / 8
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,998
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    f'in activist judges overturning the will of the people... :rant:
     
  12. DamienC

    DamienC Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,169
    Location:
    DC
    It would take more than a handgun to take down some of the rats I've seen in Adams Morgan.
     
  13. Secret Squirrel

    Secret Squirrel There is no Justice!

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,173
    Location:
    Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
    Says these guys...



     
  14. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    wow... the court up holds a constitutional right vs a policy...

    alert the media.
     
  15. jimmydean

    jimmydean The Official Meat of Ridemonkey

    Rep/Likes:
    171 / 1,427
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    28,859
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I would rather just have the Auto Assault 12. It has a rate of fire of 300 rounds/minutes from a 20 round drum. 12 gauge slugs do more damage.

     
  16. Westy

    Westy the teste

    Rep/Likes:
    436 / 2,745
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    35,901
    Location:
    Sleazattle
    Their cammo is clashing. Horrible.
     
  17. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    This isn't anything new, the courts don't claim to be democratic or care about popular opinion. Ever since the Marbury vs Madison, it has been about what the Court wants and the Court thinks.

    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.

    Bolded the important part, and why there is controversy. It clearly explains WHY there is a need for a state militia, and the State National Guard serves as the militia for the state. In this day and age, according to the Constitution, there is no need for a right to bear arms as long as there is a well-regulated militia.

    Now, not what I believe should be made into policy, but what I believe the Constitution strictly allows.
     
  18. Secret Squirrel

    Secret Squirrel There is no Justice!

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,173
    Location:
    Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
    Go go Alito!

    Go go Roberts!

    I've just become conservative.
     
  19. dante

    dante Unabomber

    Rep/Likes:
    11 / 8
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,998
    Location:
    looking for classic NE singletrack
    you live in DC?
     
  20. Defenestrated

    Defenestrated Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,657
    Location:
    Earth
    Good ruling
     
  21. SPINTECK

    SPINTECK Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    abc
    Those are excellent points and from what I read this case was easy because DC is NOT A STATE. If it was a state law, I believe it would have been more difficult.

    The majority of people on CNN 62% agree with the ruling, and they are not conservatives, so to say the will of the people was not represented is not only debatable, but probably totally innaccurate. I guess I'm liberal on many views, but I"m pro gun and there are many like me.

    This was an excellent thread I found on guns and any arguement I would use would be stolen from some of these.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

    Yes N8, i stole/reference from drudge yesterday:)
     
  22. BurlyShirley

    BurlyShirley Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    TN

    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.

    Bolded the other, equally important part. It clearly explains THAT the people, outside of the federal government, need to have a means of self defense. Since states rights (including most obviously their ability to control what their "militia" does) are all but a joke any more, the spirit of the amendment has rightfully been upheld.
     
  23. SPINTECK

    SPINTECK Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    abc
  24. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    for the purpose of a militia. National Guard members get guns. It was designed so the states wouldn't be completely dominated by the national government, back when we had a federalist system of government.
     
  25. SPINTECK

    SPINTECK Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    abc
    Objectively that is an interpretation and not written directly in any framework. There are many quotes by other founding fathers that guns are meant to help the people overthrow their own gov't if it becomes to authoritarian. You could argue that was why they encouraged millitia. There was a reason the founding fathers wanted more local/state control and did not enphasize national power to help create a dictator. They were so much more educated and intelligent back then. And they saw wars FIRST HAND.
     
  26. BurlyShirley

    BurlyShirley Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    TN
    Exactly why the courts/myself/many others believe the spirit of the amendment was designed to keep people armed, not just the federal government.
     
  27. Westy

    Westy the teste

    Rep/Likes:
    436 / 2,745
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    35,901
    Location:
    Sleazattle

    A lot of the Bill Of Rights was written as a direct result of things that happend around the time of the Revolution. I think it is safe to say that the second ammendment was a reaction to the British seizing the the armoury in Williamsburg under the command of the royal government (old timey federal gov). The armory was the weapon depot for the local militia. They made no attempt to take the weapons of private citizens. The ammendment was probably written to keep the citizenry armed but not in the sense of gun ownership for 'personal' use.'

    Of course I think this is the one ammendment that doesn't really stand the test of time. 200 years ago there weren't any weapons that could be used to mow down a crowd of people.

    Muskets for everyone!!
     
    #27 -   Jun 26, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  28. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    i dont think any of u know what the 'intent' of the framers of the Constitution was when the 2nd Amendment was written..

    however, the majority of the SCotUS has studied it long and hard and came to the conclusion that bearing arms is a RIGHT just as the Constitution said it was... unlike free health care, free college tuition, free housing, the freedom to post pr0n on RideMonkey etc..

    :)
     
    #28 -   Jun 26, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  29. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    A lot of founding fathers would be outraged right now, except Hamilton. Jefferson sure wouldn't want the three branches of national government having the power it does, as well as Madison. Washington wouldn't want us to be in the UN.

    The Constitution is meant to change with the times, to be mildly flexible. The ideals from the Age of Enlightenment aren't here now, except in political doublespeak. The courts don't have the power of judicial review in the Constitution, and that is wildly popular and accepted now. I'm sure most people now wouldn't want to live in societies that the founding fathers would have wanted. We have grown up in Hamilton's view, as a business empire.
     
  30. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus

    your argument is not only silly but quite irrelevant now.

    Awesome!
    :cheers:
     
  31. Westy

    Westy the teste

    Rep/Likes:
    436 / 2,745
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Messages:
    35,901
    Location:
    Sleazattle
    The interpretatin fo the 2nd for the past 100 years has certainly been that it protects personal use and the SC should follow 'traditional' interpretations as it allows certain flexibility. But I still do not think it was something even considered by the founders, the situation we have to day was not something they would ever have considered.

    You still have to agree no matter your interpretation of the 2nd that part of it was to allow the states to protect themselves from the feds. The irony of all this is that it is now used to force the states to comply with the feds.
     
  32. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    that is basically the point that I was making, saying what the founding fathers intended is silly because we don't follow most of their ideals
     
  33. SPINTECK

    SPINTECK Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    abc
    We have to agree to disagree, I just try for objectivity and try not to state an interpretation as fact unless it is an undeniable truth. I would also argue we have grown up on Rothchilds, rockefellor and jp morgan views.

    There was a good quote on the thread I referenced. It said something like,

    if an authoritarian dictator would take over, it would probably come from the right, so people on the left should want the freedom to keep guns.
     
  34. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    maybe the SCotUS can strike down that pesky 1st Amendment inclusion of free speech next time and up-hold Nancy Pelosi's Fairness Doctrine just for balance...

    :rolleyes:
     
  35. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    Samirol = Silver..???

    :eek:
     
  36. Defenestrated

    Defenestrated Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,657
    Location:
    Earth
    ill call the aclu on you n8, lets see how far you get then!
     
  37. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O'Brien
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California

    Just a few cases of the Supreme Court's anti-free speech rulings.
     
  38. Defenestrated

    Defenestrated Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,657
    Location:
    Earth
    Don't forget Morse v. Frederick
     
  39. Samirol

    Samirol Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,437
    There's too many for one post, I didn't want the list to go on too long

    I'm playing devil's advocate with it more than anything
     
    #39 -   Jun 26, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  40. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    i'm postin fum meh treK!!1111